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.”
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “high sacrificer” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Tagbanwa as “Most-important Priest of God” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Bariai: “Big leader of offerings” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
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)
“know something is true because of seeing it” in Teutila Cuicatec (source for this and above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
“ones who will confirm that these-things that you have seen are true” in Kankanaey (source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
“ones who are to testify about these things, because it all happened before your eyes” in Tagbanwa (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
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).
Chichewachipongwe Mulungu. Chipwonge is used to refer to acts or derogatory remarks that dishonor another person. (Mulungu is the Chichewa word for “God.”) (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
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)
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.
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 formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.