The translation of the New Testament into Scots by Lorimer (1983) has a an alternate translation of Jesus’ temptation in the Gospel of Matthew where the text is in Scots except that the devil is speaking in English.
Lorimer’s son, who edited and released the translation posthumously notes: “In the sole surviving draft, my father spells the Deil’s English like Scots mispronounced. My father’s Scots phonetics merely labour the point. In the transcript here printed, I have accordingly substituted conventional English spelling; and by quoting from the Authorised Version [King James Version] the Deil reminds us how much influence it has exerted in Scotland during the last three hundred and fifty years.” (p. 455n) [Note that only the second of the three statements by the devil is quoted from the Authorised Version, the first is quoted from the Revised Standard Version and the third is a new translation.]
Following is the text (in: Lorimer 1983, p. 455):
Syne jesus wis led awà bi the Spirit tae the muirs for tae be tempit bi the Deil.
Whan he hed taen nae mait for fortie days an fortie nichts an wis fell hungrisome, the Temper cam til him an said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to turn into loaves.”
Jesus answert, “It says i the Buik:
Man sanna live on breid alane, but on ilka wurd at comes furth o God’s mouth.”
Neist the Deil tuik him awa til the Halie Citie an set him on a ledgit o the Temple an said til him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down to the ground. For it says in the Bible:
He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Jesus answert, “Ithergates it says i the Buik: ‘Thou sanna pit the Lord thy God tae the pruif’.”
Aince mair the Deil tuik him awà, this time til an unco heich muntain, whaur he shawed him aa the kíngdoms o the warld an their glorie an said til him, “All this I will give you, if you will only go down on your knees and worship me.”
Than Jesus said til him, “Awà wi ye, Sautan! It says i the Buik:
Thou sal ivurship the Lord thy God, an him sal thou sair alane.”
At that the Deil loot him abee, an immedentlie angels cam an fettelt for him.
The Greek in Matthew 4:11 that is translated in English as “the devil left him” or similar is translated in the Kölsch translation by Boch 2017 with the common idiom do hätt sich der Deuvel usem Stöpp jemaat or “then the devil made himself scarce.” The literal translation of the idiom is “to escape (while still being protected) by the dust (of the battle),” creating a clever image since the “battle” took place in the (dusty) desert. (Source: Jost Zetzsche)
The Greek and Ge’ez that is translated in English as “devil” (itself via late Latin from Greek diabolos: “accuser, slanderer”) is sometimes translated with indigenous specific names, such as “the avaricious one” in Tetelcingo Nahuatl, “the malicious deity” in Toraja-Sa’dan (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel), or in Yoruba as èṣù. “Èṣù is thought of as bringing evil, but also as giving protection. The birth of a child may be attributed to him, as the names given to some babies show, Èṣùbiyi (Èṣù brought this forth), and Èṣùtoyin (Èṣù is worthy of praise).” (Source: John Hargreaves in The Bible Translator 1965, p. 39ff. . See also this article by Tunde Adegbola: Èṣù is not Satan: A Christian apologist’s perspective .)
Other translations include:
Muna: Kafeompu’ando seetani or “Master of the evil-spirits” (source: René van den Berg)
Mairasi: owe er epar nan or “headman of malevolent spirits” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Ojitlán Chinantec: as “head of the worldlings” (source for the last two: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125).
Mandarin Chinesemóguǐ (魔鬼), literally “magical ghost.” This is a term that was adopted from Buddhist sources into early Catholic writings and later also by Protestant translators. (Source: Zetzsche 1996, p. 32)
Uma: “King of Evil-ones” (source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “leader of demons” (source: Yakan Back Translation)
Bariai: “the bad man” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
Kupsabiny: “the Enemy” (source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Adioukrou: agn: “The word agn has been used by Adioukrou for ‘the devil’ through the years despite significant differences between these two categories. The devil of the Bible is an independent spirit being, not a psychic force. In the New Testament, the devil has clearly rebelled against God; agn is perceived to be working under God. The devil is hell-bent on getting people to rebel against God with him, but his only power is to deceive and tempt; people are victims of agn, and often are unaware of agn’s work in their lives. In the Bible, the devil is evil; agn can be used to do good or evil. Many features of traditional agn are not found in the devil of the Bible at all: making a person clairvoyant, soul eating, flying around at night while the person’s body is in bed, being a power that is inherited at birth.abŋ ŋuŋ, originally ‘evil spirit (‘the spiritual/invisible part of a person that leaves the body at death, not an independent spirit being’). (…) When doing the field research for this project, I was very surprised to see the way the category of agn is in the process of being transformed and converted as it is accessed to process Scripture.” (Source: Hill 2006)
In Lak and Shughni it is translated with terms of feminine gender. Vitaly Voinov tells this story (click or tap here to see the rest of this insight):
“In the Lak language of Dagestan, the names ‘Iblis’ and ‘sheytan’ (referring to Satan and his minions, respectively) in this language were borrowed from the Arabic Islamic tradition, but they entered Lak as feminine nouns, not masculine nouns. This means that they grammatically function like nouns referring to females in Lak; in other words, Laks are likely to think of Iblis as a woman, not a man, because of the obligatory grammatical patterning of Lak noun classes. Thus, when the team explained (in Russian) what the Lak translation of Jesus’ wilderness temptation narrative at the beginning of Matthew 4 said, it sounded something like the following: ‘After this, the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Iblis… .The temptress came to Jesus, and she said to Him…’
“Since this information (that the devil is a female spirit) is part of the very name used for Satan in Lak, nothing can really be done about this in the translation. The Lak translator did not think that the feminine gender of Iblis should cause any serious misunderstandings among readers, so we agreed to leave it in the translation. Prior to this, I had never heard about languages in which the devil is pictured as a woman, but recently I was told by a speaker of the Shughni language that in their language Sheytan is also feminine. This puts an interesting spin on things. The devil is of course a spirit, neither male nor female in a biologically-meaningful sense. But Bible translators are by nature very risk-aversive and, where possible, want to avoid any translation that might feed misleading information to readers. So what can a translator do about this? In many cases, such as the present one, one has to just accept the existing language structure and go on.”
Apali: “God’s one with talk from the head” (“basically God’s messenger since head refers to any leader’s talk”) (source: Martha Wade)
Michoacán Nahuatl: “clean helper of God” (source: B. Moore / G. Turner in Notes on Translation 1967, p. 1ff.)
Noongar: Hdjin-djin-kwabba or “spirit good” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Wè Northern (Wɛɛ): Kea ‘a “sooa or “the Lord’s soldier” (also: “God’s soldier” or “his soldier”) (source: Drew Maust)
Iwaidja: “a man sent with a message” (Sam Freney explains the genesis of this term [in this article ): “For example, in Darwin last year, as we were working on a new translation of Luke 2:6–12 in Iwaidja, a Northern Territory language, the translators had written ‘angel’ as ‘a man with eagle wings’. Even before getting to the question of whether this was an accurate term (or one that imported some other information in), the word for ‘eagle’ started getting discussed. One of the translators had her teenage granddaughter with her, and this word didn’t mean anything to her at all. She’d never heard of it, as it was an archaic term that younger people didn’t use anymore. They ended up changing the translation of ‘angel’ to something like ‘a man sent with a message’, which is both more accurate and clear.”)
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 to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. When the referent is God, the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御 or み) is used as in mi-tsukai (御使い) or “messenger (of God).” (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
Bender / Belt (2025, p. 2f.) report about the translation of “angel” in Cherokee: “In John, the concept of angel is translated using a descriptive neologism rather than a semantic extension, suggesting the lack of a ready parallel. The plural is dmikahnawadidohi, ‘the law-givers’ or ‘those who go around looking after the medicine.’ Cherokee speakers argue that the Cherokee word for ‘law,’ dikahnawadvsdi, expresses the intent to maintain social, physical, and spiritual health and has at its core the word for ‘medicine,’ mwoli, which encompasses all aspects of social and spiritual well-being, including balance and order (Altman and Belt 2009), much more than the English word. Thus, the Cherokee word for ‘angel’ represents a new perspective on this category of spiritual beings named in the Bible. It does not derive from the concept of messenger present in both its Greek (angelos) and Hebrew (malak) antecedents perhaps because the Cherokee word for ‘messenger,’ atsinvsidasdi, is widely used to translate the foreign lexeme ‘servant.'”
The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that is typically translated in English as “serve,” “minister,” “walk with,” or “service” is translated in Igede as myị ẹrụ or “agree with message (of the one you’re serving).” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
In Quetzaltepec Mixe, “serve” is translated as “obey.” (Source: Robert Bascom)
Following are a number of back-translations of Matthew 4:11:
Uma: “From there, the King of Evil-ones really went away, leaving Yesus, and after that angels arrived to bring/serve-food to him.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “After that the leader of demons left and the angels came and served him.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And Satan left there and the messengers of God arrived, and they gave Jesus what he needed.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Then the Diablo went-away, and angels arrived to help Jesus.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Well, Satanas truly did leave. And then angels came and they served Jesus.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “The devil left Jesus and went. Angels came to care for him.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Bariai: “Therefore the bad man left him, and suddenly anggelos came and helped him.” (Source: Bariai Back Translation)
Kupsabiny: “The Enemy (then) left Jesus. After that angels came and supported/helped him.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Mairasi: “After that the headman of malevolent spirits left, retreating, abandoning Yesus. And then Above-One’s sent-ones came to Him [and] guarded/ministered to Him.” (Source Enggavoter 2004)
Following is a 1973 painting of the JESUS MAFA project, a response to New Testament readings from the Lectionary by a Christian community in Cameroon, Africa. Each of the readings was selected and adapted to dramatic interpretation by the community members. Photographs of their interpretations were made, and these were then transcribed to paintings:
In this painting, Jesus has been taken to the top of a mountain in the final temptation where the devil whispers in his ear the promise of all the kingdoms of the world. Jesus is confronted with the temptation to seize power—to live by the rule(s) of the world. We know from this one gospel story that he refuses every temptation, but we know from the remaining narrative that the temptation to be the messiah people expected must have haunted him to his death on the cross. Jesus instead is a new kind of messiah, one who exemplifies non-violent resistance, trusting in the love he embodies.
From Art in the Christian Tradition, a project of the Vanderbilt Divinity Library, Nashville, TN. Image retrieved March 23, 2026. Original source: librairie-emmanuel.fr.
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 others 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: “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 Twents as well as Indonesian and Malay. In the latter two 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.