inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Matt. 22:17)

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 (excluding Jesus).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

complete verse (Matthew 22:17)

Following are a number of back-translations of Matthew 22:17:

  • Uma: “That is why we ask that you (sing.) tell us, what is your (sing.) opinion, Teacher: according to the laws of our (incl.) religion, may we (incl.) pay taxes to Kaisar, or not?'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “Therefore tell us what you say/think. Is it in agreement with our (incl.) law to pay tax to the Leader Sultan of the tribe of Roma or is it not?'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Therefore, tell us, do we break our (incl.) law if we pay the tax to our (incl.) king who is in Rome?'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Therefore please say what your (sing.) opinion is here. Do we (excl.) break our law if we (excl.) pay tax to the Emperador in Roma?'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Well what do you think? Is it in harmony with what Moises commanded to pay the payment which that Romano Impiradur who rules over us (incl.) is causing to be paid? Is it possible/acceptable or not?'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “So now we want you to tell us, is it right to pay the money asked by the ruler or not?'” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

Japanese benefactives (okikase)

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, okikase (お聞かせ) or “hear” 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. )

Honorary "are" construct denoting God ("think/consider/will")

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, omow-are-ru (思われる) or “think/consider/will” is used.

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

Translation commentary on Matthew 22:17

The sentence Tell us, then, what you think is similar to the one by which Jesus addressed Peter in 17.25.

Is it lawful may be taken either in a general sense (Moffatt, An American Translation, Barclay “is it right”), or else with specific reference to the Jewish Law (Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1st edition “According to the Law of God, are we allowed”). Translators who follow this latter interpretation can also have “Does the Law of Moses permit us” or simply “Is it lawful.”

Pay taxes to Caesar may have to be restructured slightly, particularly if otherwise readers thought that the money had to be paid directly to Caesar rather than to one of the tax collectors who worked for the Roman Empire. “Pay the taxes that Caesar requires” is good.

Originally Caesar was a proper name, but it later became used as a title meaning “Emperor,” which is the way that it is used here: “the Roman Emperor” (Good News Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

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 .