Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 73:15:
Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
“If I said, ‘I will speak in this way,’
I would have done an unfaithful (thing) to your children.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Newari:
“If I had spoken like this,
I would have betrayed Your people.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon:
“If I had- also -mocked you (sing.) the same way the wicked have-spoken, I would-have betrayed your (sing.) people.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Laarim:
“If I spoke by saying that, ‘I will speak the matters which are like that,’
God, I would have deceived your people.” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
“Iwapo ningelisema hayo,
ingekuwa nimewadanganya watu wako.” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
English:
“If I had said the things that the wicked people say,
I would have been sinning against your people.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed.
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or modern English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.
As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.
In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.
Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”
In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.
Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking.” (Source Philip Noss)
In the most recent Manchu translation of 1835 (a revision of an earlier edition from 1822), God is never addressed with a pronoun but with “father” (ama /ᠠᠮᠠ) instead. Chengcheng Liu (in this post on the Cambridge Centre for Chinese Theology blog ) explains: “In Manchu tradition, as in Chinese etiquette, second-person pronouns could be considered disrespectful when speaking to superiors or spiritual beings. Manchu Shamanist prayers avoided si [‘you’] and sini [‘your’] for this very reason. To use them for God would be, in Lipovzoff’s [one of the two translators] words, ‘the most uncouth and indecent way to speak to the Almighty — as if He were a servant or slave.’ There was also a grammatical problem. In Manchu, si and sini could refer to both singular and plural subjects. For a faith that insisted on the singularity of God, this was potentially confusing. By contrast, repeating ama removed any ambiguity.”
The psalmist resists the temptation to argue as the wicked do, who say that God has no knowledge of or interest in human affairs (verse 11). Had he so spoken or thought, he would have been guilty of betraying God’s people (literally “I would have betrayed the generation of your sons”). The first line of verse 11 can use a direct quote, as Traduction œcuménique de la Bible does: “If I had said, ‘I will reason as they do,’…”; and line b can be translated “I would have not been true to your people” or “I would have been unfaithful to your people.” This expresses his conviction that, if he had indulged in such a blasphemous statement, he would have been a traitor to his people, which indicates that he would be sinning not only against God but against his people as well. The phrase “your sons” is translated “your disciples” by New Jerusalem Bible; Bible en français courant “your sons, my companions.” New English Bible is quite good, “the family of God.” It seems better to say “your people” or “the people of God” than to use the word “children” or “sons,” which may be misunderstood. Since verse 15 refers to the content of verse 11, readers in some languages may find the referent already too far removed. Something of verse 11 must therefore be reintroduced to build in a bit of redundancy; for example, “If I had said that God can’t know things…,” or as in direct address, “If I had said, ‘God, you have no knowledge of things….’ ” “The people of God” must often be rendered, not as a possessive, but as a verb phrase; for example, “The people who worship you.”
The psalmist remained true to Israel’s belief in the rule of God in human affairs and tried to think the matter through, even though it seemed to him to be a wearisome task (New Jerusalem Bible “a hopeless task”). He went into the Temple (the sanctuary of God verse 17a), and there he was given an insight into the fate that awaits the wicked (literally their end).
How this insight came to him is not said; the language suggests a special revelation from God, either in a vision or through the inspired word of a priest. Perhaps some ritual was involved.
“Your Temple” translates the Hebrew plural “the holy places of God,” which Hebrew Old Testament Text Project suggests “may designate the one sanctuary in all its manifold parts.” Most take this to refer to the Jerusalem Temple; New Jerusalem Bible translates “the sanctuaries of the gods,” which in footnote is explained as the ruins of pagan sanctuaries; Dahood and New American Bible take it to refer to heaven, to which the psalmist was transported in spirit, in a vision or a trance. It seems best to take it to mean the Temple in Jerusalem.
Both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation indicate the temporal clause as until I went into, which marks the resolution of the psalmist’s failure to understand. In some languages it may be necessary to begin a new sentence in 17a and to render this phrase as a means; for example, “Only by going into your Temple did I understand…” or “The only way I understood was by going into your Temple.”
Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Reyburn, William D. A Handbook on the Book of Psalms. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1991. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.