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 Paul and Philemon) for the equivalent of “our brother” and either the exclusive or inclusive form for “our dear friend.”
In Huautla Mazatec, the translators selected the inclusive we, in Tok Pisin, the exclusive form is used for the second occurrence (“our dear friend”).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff. and SIL International Translation Department (1999).
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 exclusive form (excluding the readers of the letter). Chicahuaxtla Triqui, one the other hand, selects the inclusive form.
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff. and Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.
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 (“what we say”), translators typically select the exclusive form (excluding the readers of the letter).
In the Karbi and Tok Pisin translations only the first two instances are translated with the exclusive pronoun, but the third (“Let us do evil” in English) is inclusive. (This also matches the recommendation of SIL International Translation Department (1999).)
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, Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan (in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.) recommend the exclusive form (excluding Titus) and SIL SIL International Translation Department (1999) the inclusive form (including Paul and Titus.
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 quotation from Isaiah 53:1 (“Lord who has believed our report?” in many English translations) “does Isaiah mean the message of God and himself (hence inclusive) or the message he and others were giving out? The Hebrew form [translated into English as] ‘what we heard,’ together with the Greek form (translated as) ‘what is heard of us,’ gives the clue that it should be exclusive, the message that he and others were giving out.” (Source: Velma B. Pickett in The Bible Translator 1964, p. 88f.)
The Jarai and Adamawa Fulfulde translations, however, use the inclusive pronoun for this (“referring to the speakers and their fellow Judeans in exile”), following the recommendation of Ogden / Sterk.
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”).
“Gal. 5:5 taken out of its context might be the basis of a sermon in which speaker and audience were included in the “we wait for the hope…,’ but the context of v. 4 indicates a contrast between Paul’s message and that of the Judaizers, and thus an exclusive we.”
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”).
“In Gal. 2:14 Paul quotes himself as speaking to Peter. If the quotation continues into v. 15, then the ‘We ourselves, who are Jews by birth’ [in English translation] would be translated as inclusive. More likely, however, the quotation ends with v. 14, the focus of attention then shifting to the Galatians, and so it would be exclusive we.”
Nida (p. 205) also speaks of the problem of this specific verse:
“In Galatians 2:15 there is a troublesome passage for which the selection of an inclusive or exclusive form is highly debatable. The preceding sentence is obviously a part of direct discourse; but what are we to understand by the words “we ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners”? Is Paul here continuing to represent what he said in Antioch in opposition to Peter, or is he merely arguing a general position with the Galatian church audience to whom he is writing? If one assumes that Paul is still addressing the assembly in Antioch, and Peter in particular, then the inclusive form is required; but if the words are directed to the church in Galatia, obviously one should employ the exclusive. Scholars are by no means agreed on this point, for the Greek text itself is obscure. Apparently there is a gradual shift from the specific situation which involved Peter to a general statement of the gospel as it is related to the Galatian church. The translator who is rendering this passage into a language with an inclusive-exclusive distinction cannot, however, retain this obscurity. He must specify clearly by the very forms he uses whether or not this sentence is to be regarded as a part of the direct discourse.”
