inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Rom. 3:9)

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”).

Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan (in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.) recommend the inclusive form (including the writer of the letter and the readers) but SIL International Translation Department (1999) chooses to recommend the exclusive form referring to only Paul himself.

sin

The Hebrew and Greek that is typically translated as “sin” in English has a wide variety of translations.

The Greek ἁμαρτάνω (hamartanō) carries the original verbatim meaning of “miss the mark.” Likewise, many translations contain the “connotation of moral responsibility.” Loma has (for certain types of sin) “leaving the road” (which “implies a definite standard, the transgression of which is sin”) or Navajo uses “that which is off to the side.” (Source: Bratcher / Nida). In Toraja-Sa’dan the translation is kasalan, which originally meant “transgression of a religious or moral rule” and has shifted its meaning in the context of the Bible to “transgression of God’s commandments.” (Source: H. van der Veen in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 21ff. ).

In Shipibo-Conibo the term is hocha. Nida (1952, p. 149) tells the story of its choosing: “In some instances a native expression for sin includes many connotations, and its full meaning must be completely understood before one ever attempts to use it. This was true, for example, of the term hocha first proposed by Shipibo-Conibo natives as an equivalent for ‘sin.’ The term seemed quite all right until one day the translator heard a girl say after having broken a little pottery jar that she was guilty of ‘hocha.’ Breaking such a little jar scarcely seemed to be sin. However, the Shipibos insisted that hocha was really sin, and they explained more fully the meaning of the word. It could be used of breaking a jar, but only if the jar belonged to someone else. Hocha was nothing more nor less than destroying the possessions of another, but the meaning did not stop with purely material possessions. In their belief God owns the world and all that is in it. Anyone who destroys the work and plan of God is guilty of hocha. Hence the murderer is of all men most guilty of hocha, for he has destroyed God’s most important possession in the world, namely, man. Any destructive and malevolent spirit is hocha, for it is antagonistic and harmful to God’s creation. Rather than being a feeble word for some accidental event, this word for sin turned out to be exceedingly rich in meaning and laid a foundation for the full presentation of the redemptive act of God.”

In Kaingang, the translation is “break God’s word” and in Sandawe the original meaning of the Greek term (see above) is perfectly reflected with “miss the mark.” (Source: Ursula Wiesemann in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 36ff., 43)

In Warao it is translated as “bad obojona.” Obojona is a term that “includes the concepts of consciousness, will, attitude, attention and a few other miscellaneous notions.” (Source: Henry Osborn in The Bible Translator 1969, p. 74ff. ). See other occurrences of Obojona in the Warao New Testament.

Martin Ehrensvärd, one of the translators for the Danish Bibelen 2020, comments on the translation of this term: “We would explain terms, such that e.g. sin often became ‘doing what God does not want’ or ‘breaking God’s law’, ‘letting God down’, ‘disrespecting God’, ‘doing evil’, ‘acting stupidly’, ‘becoming guilty’. Now why couldn’t we just use the word sin? Well, sin in contemporary Danish, outside of the church, is mostly used about things such as delicious but unhealthy foods. Exquisite cakes and chocolates are what a sin is today.” (Source: Ehrensvärd in HIPHIL Novum 8/2023, p. 81ff. )

See also sinner.

complete verse (Romans 3:9)

Following are a number of back-translations of Romans 3:9:

  • Uma: “So the summary [lit., leveling-off words] is like this: we Jews are not better than other people. For like I said earlier, all men are guilty because we all are sinners, both the Jews and also other people.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “So-then, don’t say that we (excl.) Yahudi are better in the sight of God than the tribes/nations not Yahudi, because that is not true. I have already made clear to you that all mankind, Yahudi or not Yahudi, alike sin habitually (lit. are addicted to sin).” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “As for us (excl.) Jews, perhaps you’re thinking mistakenly that we are far better off than those people who are not Jews. However, that’s not true. I have taught you before, that as for all mankind, Jew or not Jews, all are doing evil.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “What then will we say? Is the status of the Jews in God’s estimation better than that of the Gentiles? No, because I have already said that sin rules all people, whether (lit. even) Jews or Gentiles.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “Now then, are the Jews much better than all the rest of the people? Such a word cannot be right. Because I have already said that Jews and people who are not Jews all have sin.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Romans 3:9

The first part of this verse, Well then, are we Jews in any better condition than the Gentiles? Not at all!, presents several exegetical problems. (1) The Greek verb (one word in Greek, but ten words in Good News Translation: are we Jews in any better condition than the Gentiles?) may be understood in one of three ways. Most scholars interpret this verb in the same sense as the Good News Translation (see Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, Moffatt, Phillips), but An American Translation* understands it in precisely the opposite sense (“are we Jews at a disadvantage?”; see also the alternative renderings in the Revised Standard Version and New English Bible). A third possibility of understanding this verb, though one not widely accepted, is represented in a footnote of the Jerusalem Bible (“what excuse then can we [Jews] offer?”). The problem with this third possibility is that the words rendered well then would have to be taken along with the main verb (with the meaning “what excuse then are we offering”), and the answer to this would have to be “none at all” (rather than not at all, as in the Greek). (2) The words rendered not at all may also mean “not altogether” (see New English Bible note “not in all respects”). The final decision as to exegesis should be made on the basis of what seems to fit the context best, and the exegesis represented by the Good News Translation, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, Moffatt, and Phillips seems to be most in keeping with the immediate as well as the overall context.

In verse 1 of this chapter Paul raised the question whether the Jews had any advantage over the Gentiles. His answer was Much, indeed, in every way! Paul now returns to that question and approaches it from a different point of view. He points out that even though God did trust his message to the Jews (v. 2), the Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. Viewed from this perspective, the Jews are not in any better condition that the Gentiles.

In addition to the complex exegetical difficulties involved in the first part of verse 9, there are a number of translational complications. In the first place, there is the transitional phrase well then, which is equivalent in some languages to “and now to return to the question,” “and what is the conclusion?” or “what can we really say?”

In the second place, we in the expression we Jews must be taken as exclusive in languages which make a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural. Paul is obviously not including all of his audience in Rome, and though presumably he may be including part of his audience (since there are no doubt Jews among the believers in Rome), it is preferable in this type of context to use the exclusive first person plural.

In the third place, in any better condition may be rendered in some instances as “have a better place” or “are in a better position” (the reference here is clearly not to a condition of health). However, since the relation here is primarily one involving God, it may be necessary to specify this—for example, “better as far as God looks upon us” or “better in the eyes of God.”

In the fourth place, it may be necessary to change the question into a statement and incorporate the strong negative expression not at all as part of the initial statement—for example, “in summary then, we Jews are certainly not in any better condition than the Gentiles.”

I have already shown is in the Greek text a plural (“we”), but once again Paul uses the plural form as a reference to himself.

The final sentence of verse 9 may be treated as a reason for the first sentence and thus be introduced by a conjunction such as “for” or “because”—for example, “because I have already pointed out that Jews and Gentiles….”

The phrase under the power of sin is difficult to express in some languages, especially since power is highly abstract and sin refers primarily to events, not to some object. In some languages, however, one may use a phrase such as “all are controlled by sin” or “sin controls all people.” But in certain languages one cannot speak of sin controlling someone; it is only the desire to sin which can do this—for example, “all men are controlled by their desire to sin” or “men’s desire to sin commands them.”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .