The Greek that is translated as “tear clothes” or similar in English is translated in the German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999) with reißen sich die Kleider vom Leib or “tear clothes off themselves.”
They explain (p. 25): “In Jewish mourning rituals, clothes are torn to show solidarity with the deceased and to show that one no longer wishes to live on; the dress symbolizes social existence. Whoever tears the clothes from his body annuls participation and community. Our translation therefore makes it clear that the tearing of clothes in these cases is directly related to the idolatry of people described in the context, which is considered the worst atrocity. Here, ‘mourning’ encompasses more than sadness, but rather lamentation, protest, renunciation and repentance all in one.”
Chichewachipongwe Mulungu. Chipwonge is used to refer to acts or derogatory remarks that dishonor another person. (Mulungu is the Choichewa word for “God.”) (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “high priest” in English is translated as “the ruler of the priests of our nation” in Yatzachi Zapotec, as “very great priest” in Chol (source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.), as “first over the priests” in Ayutla Mixtec, and “chief of the priests” in Desano (source for this and one above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.).
In Uma it is translated as “Big Priest,” in Western Bukidnon Manobo as “high sacrificer,” and in Tagbanwa as “Most-important Priest of God.” (See here.)
In Khoekhoe the translation for “high priest” is only capitalized when it refers to Jesus (as is Hebrews 2:17 et al.). (Source: project-specific notes in Paratext)
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “witness” in English is translated as “truly have seen” in Highland Popoluca, as “telling the truth regarding something” (Eastern Highland Otomi), as “know something” in Lalana Chinantec, as “verily know something to be the truth” in San Mateo del Mar Huave, as “we ourselves saw this,” in Desano, as “tell the truth about something” in Eastern Highland Otomi, as “know something is true because of seeing it” in Teutila Cuicatec. (Source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated with “clothes” or similar in English is translated in Enlhet as “crawling-in-stuff” (source: Jacob Loewen in The Bible Translator 1971, p. 169ff. ) and in Noongar as bwoka or “Kangaroo skin” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
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 inclusive form (including those who are addressed by the high priest).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Following are a number of back-translations of Matthew 26:65:
Uma: “Hearing this, the Big Priest tore his shirt from being angry, and he said: ‘This person makes himself the same as God! There is no more need of witnesses! You have heard for yourselves his words belittling God.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “So-then the leader priest tore his clothes because of his anger, and he said, ‘He speaks as if he is God. Why should we seek witnesses? You have now heard what he said there, as if he is God.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And then the high priest, he tore his shirt as a sign that he was very angry because of what Jesus had said and he said, ‘He pretends to be the Son of God. This one has transgressed God. There is no need for any more witnesses, because all of you have heard his words which are a great transgression against God.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Upon hearing that, the highest priest tore his own clothes due-to his anger and he said, ‘He has made-himself -equal to God! Is it indeed-the-case (RQ implying of course not) that we need one(s)-to-testify? Here-now emphatically we have heard the evil that he said.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “When that Most-important Priest heard, he tore his own clothes in anger. He spoke saying, ‘Really as for that speech/word, he is falsely-claiming to be God! Well, why do we (incl.) still need evidence? Isn’t it so that you have all heard this which he said making himself the same as God?” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “When the high priest heard the word Jesus spoke, he tore his clothes with anger. He said to the people: ‘This man here is mocking God. It is clear that we do not need to search for any more witnesses. You have yourselves heard how he mocks God.” (Source: Tenango Otomi 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 ta (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential ta (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. ).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.