Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 78:45:
Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
“He sent them groups of flies that destroyed them,
and frogs that ravaged them.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Newari:
“He gave them trouble by sending flies to their place.
He ruined their fields by sending frogs to their place.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon:
“He sent swarms of flies to make- them -suffer,
and frogs to-harm their land.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Laarim:
“He sent many flies that bite them,
and the frogs that did them bad.” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
“Aliwatumia makundi ya mainzi, yakawasumbua.
Alituma vyura, vikaharibu nchi yao.” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
English:
“He sent among the people of Egypt swarms of flies that bit them,
and he sent frogs that ate up everything.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
There is little doubt that the Hebrew and Greek words mean “frog”. The plague of frogs mentioned in Exodus comes after the plague of polluted water. The frogs seem to have left the water and come into the villages. Since frogs eat flies and thus control fly populations, it seems likely that the death of the frogs was one of the causes of the next two plagues to trouble Egypt, namely gnats and flies.
The two most common frogs in the Middle East and Egypt are the Edible Frog Rana esculenta and the Spotted Frog Rana punctata. They are both about 70 millimeters (3 inches) long and are brown or olive-green in color. They live in the water almost all of the time and eat gnats, flies, and other waterside insects. They lay eggs, which hatch as tadpoles and gradually grow legs. The hind legs are much bigger and better developed than the front legs, since the hind legs are used for jumping.
Frogs were considered unclean by the Jews and also by the Egyptians and Persians, who associated them with demons.
Frogs are found all over the world, and there should be no problem in finding a local equivalent.
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 the closely related 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. ).
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, kuitsukus-are-ru (食い尽くされる) or “eat thoroughly” is used.
In these verses the psalmist recalls the plagues in Egypt (Exo 7–12).
Verse 44, the first plague: water into blood (Exo 7.17-21; see Psa 105.29). Their rivers are the rivers of the Egyptians; and their rivers in line a and their streams in line b refer to the same bodies of water. Both Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version make line b a consequence of line a. However, the use of “and” in Good News Translation is also coordinate and therefore more ambiguous. Most languages will require making line b explicitly a consequence of line a; for example, “and because of this the Egyptians could not drink the water.”
Verse 45a, the fourth plague: flies (Exo 8.20-24; see Psa 105.31a). The Hebrew text is “they ate them up” (Revised Standard Versiondevoured), which is not to be taken literally. Bible en français courant has “sucked their blood.” Good News Translation “tormented them” may be a bit weak; perhaps “caused them great suffering” or something similar would be better. Again it is to be noticed that them refers to the Egyptians.
Verse 45b, the second plague: frogs (Exo 8.1-7; see Psa 105.30). The use of the verb destroyed does not mean that the frogs killed the Egyptians but that they “ruined their land” (the same Hebrew verb is used in Exo 8.24, “the land was ruined” by the flies); Bible en français courant has “laid waste to everything.” Biblia Dios Habla Hoy handles this verse well: “He sent among them flies and frogs, which ate and destroyed everything.” In languages in which frogs, locusts, grapevines, and fig trees are unknown, local objects may have to be used or illustrations provided, particularly if the book of Exodus has not yet been translated.
Verse 46, the eighth plague: locusts (Exo 10.1-20; see Psa 105.34-35). The Hebrew text has two different words, which Revised Standard Version translates caterpillar and locust, but it is probable that the two are synonymous, both referring to locusts (Good News Translation, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy; see Fauna and Flora of the Bible, page jmp 53-54|fig:ffb_locust.htmjmp*). Their crops in line a is parallel with the fruit of their labor in line b, both referring to their cultivated fields, with all the plants and fruit trees they (the Egyptians) grew.
Verse 47, the seventh plague: hail and thunderstorms (Exo 9.18-26; see Psa 105.32-33). Frost in line b translates a word found only here in the Old Testament; the ancient versions so understood it, but the account in Exodus does not mention frost. The psalmist no doubt selected it as a suitable term to be in parallel position with hail. Some take the word to mean “deluge” (K-B, Holladay “devastating flood”; New English Bible “torrent of rains”; New International Version “sleet”; Bible en français courant “torrential rains”; Oesterley “hailstones”). “Fig trees” (also Biblia Dios Habla Hoy) represents the Hebrew word usually rendered sycamores (Revised Standard Version), which also produce figs, but here it probably refers to fig trees (see 105.33; Fauna and Flora of the Bible, pages jmp 118-119|fig:ffb_figtree.htmjmp*).
Verse 48: it is difficult to determine whether this verse continues from verse 47 as a reference to the seventh plague, or is a description of the fifth plague, pestilence (Exo 9.1-7). He gave over their cattle to the hail is a way of saying that God caused the hail to fall on the cattle (see similar language in verses 46a and 50c). The Masoretic text in line a has hail, the same word used in verse 47a; and in line b the word is reshep, which means “flames” (as in 76.3a), and so Good News Translation “lightning” (Revised Standard Versionthunderbolts). The account in Exodus 9.22, 25 specifies that the hail destroyed not only the vegetation but also the animals, and so verse 48 may be the same plague as verse 47 (so Good News Translation, Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Dahood, Weiser).
But two Hebrew manuscripts, instead of “hail” in verse 48a, have deber “pestilence” (the same word in verse 50c); and in line b of the Masoretic text the word reshep may mean “plague” (see Hab 3.5 where reshep in line b is parallel to deber “pestilence” in line a). So verse 48 may refer to the fifth plague (Exo 9.1-7; in Exo 9.3 the word is deber); so Briggs, Good News Translation footnote, New English Bible.
Their flocks in both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation refer to sheep. Biblia Dios Habla Hoy provides a good translation model here: “Their cows and their sheep died under the hail and the lightning.” Many languages will require an active voice, “He killed the cows and sheep with hail and lightning.”
Verses 49-51 describe the last plague, the worst one of all: the death of all the first-born sons of the Egyptians (Exo 11.1–12.30; see Psa 105.36). The Hebrew text is very full: “the heat of his anger, rage, and indignation, and distress”; Good News Translation has taken “distress” to be that of the people, as the result of God’s fury. But it is better to take the word as applying to God, and translate “trouble” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “anguish” (Biblia Dios Habla Hoy). The psalmist calls these passions God’s company of destroying angels; see New Jerusalem Bible “a detachment of destroying angels”; New Jerusalem Bible “a band of deadly messengers.” If the translator follows the restructuring of Good News Translation, it is possible that some translation problems will remain. The figure of “pouring out his anger and fierce rage” must often be recast to say, for example, “he struck them in his anger” or “because he was angry at them, he struck them. His anger was like a messenger bringing news of death” or “… like messengers who have come to kill people.”
In verse 50a the Hebrew text is “he prepared a way for his anger,” which New Jerusalem Bible translates “he gave free course to his anger.” God let loose his anger to go where it would. Line b is “he did not hold back the death of their nefesh” (see 3.2). And in line c the text is but gave their lives over to the plague. For the verb see also verses 48 and 62. The word plague in gave their lives over to the plague is sometimes rendered “a terrible disease that kills people.” Line c of verse 50 may then be rendered “but killed them by giving them a terrible disease.”
In verse 51 the two phrases all the first-born and the first issue of their strength (see also 105.36) refer to the oldest son of every Egyptian family. (Exo 12.29 adds also “the first-born of the cattle.”) It is better to shorten and combine the two, as Good News Translation, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch have done, than to have both phrases, as Revised Standard Version does.
Many languages designate the first-born child, whether son or daughter, by special terms.
In verse 51b the tents of Ham is a way of speaking about Egypt (see 105.23, 27; 106.22, where Egypt is called “the land of Ham”). Ham, one of the sons of Noah, was regarded as the ancestor of the Egyptians (see Gen 10.6).
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.