The rhetorical questions in Greek that are also translated with rhetorical questions in English in Romans 8:31-35 had to be transformed in Nabak.
Grace Fabian (in: Fabian 2013, p. 149) explains: “Zumbek [Fabian’s co-translator] and I took fresh courage and started in. I had expected [the translation of Romans] to be much more difficult than it really was. We found Paul’s debate very logical except the rhetorical questions. For instance, in Romans 8:31-34 Paul is not asking questions for information. ‘Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?’ Paul and the people in the Greco-Roman world of his day would know that the answer is, ‘No one.’
“The Nabaks do not have this grammatical device in their language. They immediately start asking, ‘Who can separate us? Let me think now.’ So we changed the question to a statement, ‘No one can separate us from the love of Christ. Absolutely nothing can separate us from the love of Christ.’ Then the list of specific situations follows and each one is eliminated as a threat to our security. The rephrasing resulted in correct and satisfying comprehension. We liked the flow of the Nabak words.”
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”).
For this verse, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the writer of the letter and the readers).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Following are a number of back-translations of Romans 8:32:
Uma: “Even his own Child he was not stingy with, he ordered him here to die in place of us all. So if-even his own Child he was not stingy with, certainly he will also give us every sort of thing.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “God did not hold back his Child/Son but he surrendered/yielded (him) to be killed for the good of us (incl.) all. If he could do that we (incl.) are assured that he will really give us (incl.) all we (incl.) need.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Because even his son Jesus, He did not set his heart on (this word means He did not hold him back so as not to allow him to be used fo anything) but rather He sent him in order that he might let himself be killed as a substitute for us (incl.). If His kindness to us is like that, it’s not possible that He will not also give us everything that He promised us.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Because even his own (lit. exact) Child, he didn’t protect him but rather he turned-him -over to be punished for us all. If God did that to his Child for us, is it perhaps possible that he won’t also give us all we need?” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “God did not hold back from sending his Son to die for us. Thus we realize that all the words God said he would give us he will surely give.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Hopi: “For God was not stingy with his Son but he turned him over to death for all of us. And having done that, clearly he will give to us all things freely.” (Source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
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 choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. Here, megunde (恵んで) or “bless” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”
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, watas-are-ru (渡される) or “hand over” is used.
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 both 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. ).
He did not even keep back his own Son is evidently an allusion to the story of Abraham’s sacrifice in Genesis 22.16. In the Septuagint account of that story the Greek translator used the same verb that Paul uses here (keep back, literally “to spare”), and the thought of Abraham is fresh in his mind from the earlier chapters of this letter. Offered means literally “to give over” and is used by Paul in 4.25 (given over to die), as well as in 1.24, 26, 28 (given them over). The Good News Translation actually translates this verb twice in the present verse, in order to relate the various parts of the verse and to bring out the emphasis which Paul intends: he gave us his Son.
Did not even keep back is rendered in some languages as “did not prevent from suffering” or “did not cause him to evade suffering.”
In order to indicate clearly the significance of offered it may be necessary to add “as a sacrifice,” therefore: “he offered him as a sacrifice on behalf of all of us.”
By the form which Paul uses in asking his question, will he not also freely give us all things?, he indicates that he does believe that God will freely give us all things.
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 .
Living Water is produced for the Bible translation movement in association with Lutheran Bible Translators. Lyrics derived from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.