12They made their hearts adamant in order not to hear the law and the words that the Lord of hosts had sent by his spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great wrath came from the Lord of hosts.
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, oku-rare-ru (送られる) or “send” 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. Other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are Twents as well as 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. ).
They made their hearts like adamant: The third picture is a common one in the Old Testament (compare Exo 8.15, 32; Exo 9.34; Jer 6.28; Ezek 3.7-9; 11.19). Adamant is a very hard stone. This picture will be understood in many parts of the world and most translators will be able to keep it. Many modern versions use the word “diamond” (New American Bible, Bible de Jérusalem, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) and others use “flint” (New International Version, Beck). Translators could also say “as hard as granite” in areas where this stone is common. Good News Translation uses a more general term: “as hard as rock.” However, a translation will be more vivid if some particular type of rock or stone is named. Revised English Bible keeps the term “adamant,” but uses it as an adjective rather than a noun because this is more natural in English: “They were adamant in their refusal.” Languages that use ideophones may have a suitable one that could replace “as hard as a rock” here.
Lest they should hear the law and the words: It is not certain whether the law and the words are to be taken as two separate items or just two labels for the same item. If they are taken as separate items, then the law could be seen as referring to the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament), and the words to the writings of the former prophets. Such a formulation would be unusual as early as the time of Zechariah, but it seems quite possible that the Septuagint and the Vulgate understood the sentence in this way. Among modern English versions, only New International Version definitely accepts this interpretation, translating “They … would not listen to the law or to the words that…” (compare New Living Translation). Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente indicates in a footnote that it also accepts this view. The Hebrew word translated the law also has a more general meaning of “teaching” (New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation, Beck) or “instruction” (New English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) and many translators take it to have that sense here. If so, then the relative clause (which the LORD of hosts had sent …) qualifies both “the teaching” and the words. Beck makes this interpretation clear by saying “the teaching, namely the words.” This second possibility avoids the imbalance that the sentence would show if the very long relative clause applied only to the second noun, the words. On the whole therefore, this interpretation seems preferable. As for translation, some versions run the two ideas into one word such as “teaching” (Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) while others use two words of similar meaning, such as “the directions and the orders” (Moffatt).
Which the LORD of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets: For LORD of hosts, see the comments on Hag 1.2. In spelling Spirit with a capital letter, Revised Standard Version indicates a heavenly person or divine being (compare Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, New International Version, Beck, New Living Translation). Other modern versions (New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Revised English Bible, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) do not use a capital letter, and of course in many scripts there is no distinction between capital and small letters anyway. In any case, people who are listening to the text being read aloud will not hear any difference. In the present context, where the LORD has just been mentioned, the meaning should be clear. For Spirit see also the comments on Hag 2.5 and Zech 4.6. In Good News Translation, where verses 11-12 are restructured as first person, both the LORD of hosts and his Spirit are expressed in the single word “I” (compare Hag 2.5). This is not an entirely adequate translation, and if other translators are restructuring these verses as first person, there is no reason why they cannot say “which I sent by my S/spirit through the prophets” (similarly Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). For the activity of God’s Spirit in connection with prophecy, compare Neh 9.30; Isa 61.1; Micah 3.8. In this last place in particular, God’s Spirit is linked with his “power” filling the prophet and causing him to speak God’s word. For the middle part of this verse, perhaps translators may say something like “Instead they refused to listen to the law and the teaching that I had caused the earlier prophets to preach through my power.”
For the former prophets, see the comments on 1.4.
Therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts: In many languages this will need to be expressed with a personal subject as “So the LORD Almighty became very angry” (similarly New International Version, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente).
Good News Translation has restructured verses 11 and 12 so as to reduce the amount of repetition. In this way it has slightly altered the relationships between the clauses, though it has not distorted the main intent. In languages that do not consider repetition to be good style, Good News Translation may be a useful model.
Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Zechariah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.