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 addressee).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
In Fijian, the paucal exclusive forms neitou and keitou (“of me and a few [two or slight more]”) are used instead. This choice is understandable in view of the introduction found in both letters to the Thessalonians, where the writer Paul indicates clearly that the letters were co-authored by two other colleagues, Silas and Timothy, hence the use of a pronoun referring to three people (“Paul, Silas and Timothy”).
Following are a number of back-translations of 2 Thessalonians 3:4:
Uma: “So, because it is the Lord who takes care of you, that is why we know for certain that you are following what we taught you, and you will continue to follow whatever we teach you.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Because of our (excl.) trust in our (incl.) Leader we (excl.) know that you follow what we (excl.) commanded you and that you continually do it.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Because of our (excl.) faith in the Lord, we know that you will continue to obey our commands to you.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Because-of him also, we (excl.) expect that you will continue to be doing what we (excl.) are commanding you.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “And on the strength of our being united/tied-together with the Lord, we (excl.) are sure that you are doing and will continue to do all that which we (excl.) have said to you.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “We are sure that the Lord helps. Therefore I know that concerning the word I order you, it is what you will do, there will not come the day that you reject this word.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
The Hebrew adonai in the Old Testament typically refers to God. The shorter adon (and in two cases in the book of Daniel the Aramaic mare [מָרֵא]) is also used to refer to God but more often for concepts like “master,” “owner,” etc. In English Bible translations all of those are translated with “Lord” if they refer to God.
In English Old Testament translations, as in Old Testament translations in many other languages, the use of Lord (or an equivalent term in other languages) is not to be confused with Lord (or the equivalent term with a different typographical display for other languages). While the former translates adonai, adon and mare, the latter is a translation for the tetragrammaton (YHWH) or the Name of God. See tetragrammaton (YHWH) and the article by Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff. for more information.
In the New Testament, the Greek term kurios has at least four different kinds of use:
referring to “God,” especially in Old Testament quotations,
meaning “master” or “owner,” especially in parables, etc.,
as a form of address (see for instance John 4:11: “Sir, you have no bucket”),
or, most often, referring to Jesus
In the first and fourth case, it is also translated as “Lord” in English.
Most languages naturally don’t have one word that covers all these meanings. According to Bratcher / Nida, “the alternatives are usually (1) a term which is an honorific title of respect for a high-ranking person and (2) a word meaning ‘boss’, ‘master’, or ‘chief.’ (…) and on the whole it has generally seemed better to employ a word of the second category, in order to emphasize the immediate personal relationship, and then by context to build into the word the prestigeful character, since its very association with Jesus Christ will tend to accomplish this purpose.”
When looking at the following list of back-translations of the terms that translators in the different languages have used for both kurios and adonai to refer to God and Jesus respectively, it might be helpful for English readers to recall the etymology of the English “Lord.” While this term might have gained an exalted meaning in the understanding of many, it actually comes from hlaford or “loaf-ward,” referring to the lord of the castle who was the keeper of the bread (source: Rosin 1956, p. 121).
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight
Following are some of the solutions that don’t rely on a different typographical display (see above):
Iyansi: Mwol. Mwol is traditionally used for the “chief of a group of communities and villages” with legal, temporal, and spiritual authority (versus the “mfum [the term used in other Bantu languages] which is used for the chief of one community of people in one village”). Mwol is also used for twins who are “treated as special children, highly honored, and taken care of like kings and queens.” (Source: Kividi Kikama in Greed / Kruger, p. 396ff.)
Binumarien: Karaambaia: “fight-leader” (Source: Oates 1995, p. 255)
Warlpiri: Warlaljamarri (owner or possessor of something — for more information tap or click here)
We have come to rely on another term which emphasizes God’s essential nature as YHWH, namely jukurrarnu (see tetragrammaton (YHWH)). This word is built on the same root jukurr– as is jukurrpa, ‘dreaming.’ Its basic meaning is ‘timelessness’ and it is used to describe physical features of the land which are viewed as always being there. Some speakers view jukurrarnu in terms of ‘history.’ In all Genesis references to YHWH we have used Kaatu Jukurrarnu. In all Mark passages where kurios refers to God and not specifically to Christ we have also used Kaatu Jukurrarnu.
New Testament references to Christ as kurios are handled differently. At one stage we experimented with the term Watirirririrri which refers to a ceremonial boss of highest rank who has the authority to instigate ceremonies. While adequately conveying the sense of Christ’s authority, there remained potential negative connotations relating to Warlpiri ceremonial life of which we might be unaware.
Here it is that the Holy Spirit led us to make a chance discovery. Transcribing the personal testimony of the local Warlpiri pastor, I noticed that he described how ‘my Warlaljamarri called and embraced me (to the faith)’. Warlaljamarri is based on the root warlalja which means variously ‘family, possessions, belongingness’. A warlaljamarri is the ‘owner’ or ‘possessor’ of something. While previously being aware of the ‘ownership’ aspect of warlaljamarri, this was the first time I had heard it applied spontaneously and naturally in a fashion which did justice to the entire concept of ‘Lordship’. Thus references to Christ as kurios are now being handled by Warlaljamarri.” (Source: Stephen Swartz, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )
Mairasi: Onggoao Nem (“Throated One” — “Leader,” “Elder”) or Enggavot Nan (“Above-One”) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Obolo: Okaan̄-ene (“Owner of person(s)”) (source: Enene Enene)
Lotha Naga: Opvui (“owner of house / field / cattle”) — since both “Lord” and YHWH are translated as Opvui there is an understanding that “Opvui Jesus is the same as the Opvui of the Old Testament”
Seediq: Tholang, loan word from Min Nan Chinese (the majority language in Taiwan) thâu-lâng (頭儂): “Master” (source: Covell 1998, p. 248)
Thai: phra’ phu pen cao (พระผู้เป็นเจ้า) (divine person who is lord) or ong(kh) cao nay (องค์เจ้านาย) (<divine classifier>-lord-boss) (source: Stephen Pattemore)
Arabic often uses different terms for adonai or kurios referring to God (al-rabb الرب) and kurios referring to Jesus (al-sayyid الـسـيـد). Al-rabb is also the term traditionally used in Arabic Christian-idiom translations for YHWH, and al-sayyid is an honorary term, similar to English “lord” or “sir” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin).
Tamil also uses different terms for adonai/kurios when referring to God and kurios when referring to Jesus. The former is Karttar கர்த்தர், a Sanskrit-derived term with the original meaning of “creator,” and the latter in Āṇṭavar ஆண்டவர், a Tamil term originally meaning “govern” or “reign” (source: Natarajan Subramani).
Burunge: Looimoo: “owner who owns everything” (in the Burunge Bible translation, this term is only used as a reference to Jesus and was originally used to refer to the traditional highest deity — source: Michael Endl in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 48)
Aguacateco: Ajcaw ske’j: “the one to whom we belong and who is above us” (source: Rita Peterson in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 49)
Konkomba: Tidindaan: “He who is the owner of the land and reigns over the people” (source: Lidorio 2007, p. 66)
Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew adonai was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments: “Another case is the use of kurios referring to Jesus. For Yahweh (in English Bibles: ‘the Lord‘), the Septuagint uses kurios. Although the term kurios usually has to do with one’s authority over others, when the New Testament authors use this word from the Septuagint to refer to Jesus, they are making an extraordinary claim: Jesus of Nazareth is to be identified with Yahweh.”
1 Thess. 4.1 is the best commentary on this verse. The main problems in translating it concern the tenses of two of the four verbs in the Greek text. The other two are quite clear: are doing and will continue to do (literally “will do”; continue is implied).
The Lord gives us confidence in you is literally “we have-been-and-are-confident in the Lord about you.” The confidence begins in the past, no doubt at the time of the readers’ conversion, and continues into the present. If, as in English, it as awkward to express both these ideas, it is best to use a present tense. It is not quite clear whether Paul’s confidence is in the Lord, in you, or in both, whether “we are confident in the Lord concerning you,” or “we as Christians have confidence in you.” The two ideas are closely related, and Good News Translation satisfactorily includes both.
The Lord gives us confidence in you actually represents a causative relation. “It is the Lord that causes us to have confidence in you,” or “… to be sure about you.” To have confidence in someone may be expressed in some languages as “to trust” or “to rely on” someone. Therefore, one may translate this statement as “the Lord causes us to rely on you.”
As in a number of contexts, the Lord must often be translated as “our Lord,” since those to whom the Lord is related as ruler must often be specified.
There may be a problem in some languages in beginning verse 4 with a conjunction such as and, since there is no obvious and immediate relation between the preceding clause and what follows. It may be better to omit and and begin the sentence as “the Lord also gives us confidence.” In this way some indication of the relation between this statement and the beginning of verse 3 may be made explicit.
The translation of what we tell you involves an overlap of past and present, though the tense of the Greek verb is present. In verses 6 and 12, Paul is clearly referring to the particular teaching he is now giving about the obligation to work. In verse 10 he uses the same verb in the past tense. In verse 4, Paul has not yet mentioned any specific teaching. In any case, he states that the Thessalonians are already doing what we tell you, and this clearly implies some earlier instruction, either during Paul’s visit or in a letter. The translation of what we tell you should be wide enough to include both past and present teaching. Some translations avoid the problem of tense by using a noun instead of the verb, for example, Barclay “our instructions” (cf. PhillipsDie Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Jerusalem Bible generalizes the statement by adding the word “all”: “will go on doing all that we tell you.”
The Greek verb means “tell” in the sense of command or order, not in the sense of telling a story. The words are doing and will continue to do emphasize the practical nature of the teaching Paul has in mind. This is another slight indication that verses 1-5 are linked with what follows, rather than with the doctrinal teaching of chapter 2.
In some instances the rendering of are doing and will continue to do may cause confusion, because a verb meaning “to do” may carry the implication of “to work.” This would not be entirely appropriate in view of what Paul says beginning with verse 6. The implications here are broader than mere work, and therefore it is more appropriate in some instances to translate “we are sure that you are living and will continue to live in the way in which we tell you,” or “… are behaving and will continue to behave in the manner we prescribe.”
Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.