Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 78:69:
Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
“He built his sacred place like heights,
the land which he established forever.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Newari:
“He built His holy place as high as the heavens
and like the earth, he made it solidly for ever.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon:
“There he had-built/set-up his temple the-same height as the mountains, and it will remain until whenever just-like the earth/ground.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Laarim:
“He came to built his House to be high like mountain,
it stays like the earth that God built to stay forever.” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
“Akajenga hekalu lake refu kama vile milima,
ya kuwako milele kama vile dunia.” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
English:
“He decided to have his temple built there, high up, like his home in heaven;
he caused it to be firm,
and intended that his temple would last forever, like the earth.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
The Hebrew, Greek and Latin that is translated as “sanctuary” in English is translated in the Contemporary Chichewa translation (2002/2016) with opatulika or “separated place.” This is understood in a religious setup as a place designated for worship. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero 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 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 rare (られ) 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, tate-rare-ru (建てられる) or “build” is used.
These verses describe how the central place of worship was moved from Shiloh (see verse 60), which was in the territory of the tribe of Ephraim. Ephraim was one of the sons of Joseph, and the tribe was made up of his descendants; so in verse 67 tent of Joseph and tribe of Ephraim are parallel and used synonymously. After having been captured in battle by the Philistines, the Covenant Box, once it had been returned to Israel, was not taken back to Shiloh. It would be impossible to make clear the significance of the relation of Joseph and Ephraim and the historical implication of the removal of the Covenant Box without building a commentary into the translation. However, any translation of this passage should contain adequate cross references to assist the reader, and perhaps a supplementary note. In regard to the translation of this verse, it may be possible to keep only “descendants of Joseph” or “tribe of Ephraim” Since verse 68 continues with reference to the “tribe of Judah,” it may be better to keep “tribe of Ephraim” only, in verse 67.
Mount Zion (see information at 2.6) was in Jerusalem, in the territory of the tribe of Judah. David placed the Covenant Box there, after the original inhabitants, the Jebusites, were driven out.
The Temple (his sanctuary, verse 69) was built by Solomon on nearby Mount Moriah; the name Mount Zion was applied to that hill and also to the whole city of Jerusalem.
In verse 69 it is not clear what the simile like the high heavens means; either “high as the heavens” (New English Bible) or “like the high hills” (New Jerusalem Bible). Most translations follow the Revised Standard Version interpretation. Perhaps the idea of permanence, which is explicitly expressed in line b, is meant also in line a (Anderson); so Bible en français courant “There he built his temple, solid like heaven, and like the earth, which he set in place forever.” For translation suggestions on sanctuary see 20.2; 28.2. At the end of verse 69, which he has founded for ever refers to the earth; consequently Good News Translation should be “… the earth, which he made to last forever” or “… the earth, which he set in place forever.”
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.