8Then he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac did likewise to Jacob and Jacob to the twelve patriarchs.
The name that is transliterated as “Abraham” in English is translated in virtually all sign languages, including American Sign Language with the sign signifying “hold back arm” (referring to Genesis 22:12).
In Tira it is transliterated as Abaram. The choice of this, rather than the widely-known “Ibrahim,” as used in the Tira translation of the Qu’ran, was to offset it against the Muslim transliteration which originates from Arabic. (Source: J.A. Naudé, C.L. Miller Naudé, J.O. Obono in Acta Theologica 43/2, 2023, p. 129ff. )
Click or tap here to see two short video clips about Abraham (source: Bible Lands 2012)
The Greek that is often translated as “patriarchs” in English is translated as “first old fathers” in Isthmus Zapotec, as “the ancient fathers” in Tzeltal, as “the old important people who lived long ago were forefathers of the Israelites” in Yatzachi Zapotec, as “the ancient fathers” in Highland Totonac, as “the 12 sons of Jacob” Central Tarahumara, or “the fathers from way back when” in Chicahuaxtla Triqui. (Source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
The name that is transliterated as “Isaac” in English is signed in Spanish Sign Language and French Sign Language with a sign that is linked to his mother’s laughter when she hears that she will be pregnant with him (referring to Genesis 18:12 – 18:15) and also is the meaning of the Hebrew “Isaac” (Yitschaq — “he laughs”):
Natügu: nzesz’tikr drtwr: “oneness of mind” (source: Brenda Boerger in Beerle-Moor / Voinov, p. 164)
Tagalog: tipan: mutual promising on the part of two persons agreeing to do something (also has a romantic touch and denotes something secretive) (source: G. Henry Waterman in The Bible Translator 1960, p. 24ff. )
Tagbanwa: “initiated-agreement” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Guhu-Samane: “The concept [in Mark 14:24 and Matthew 16:28] is not easy, but the ritual freeing of a fruit and nut preserve does afford some reference. Thus, ‘As they were drinking he said to them, ‘On behalf of many this poro provision [poro is the traditional religion] of my blood is released.’ (…) God is here seen as the great benefactor and man the grateful recipient.” (Source: Ernest Richert in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. )
Law (2013, p. 95) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew berith was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments (click or tap here to read more):
“Right from the start we witness the influence of the Septuagint on the earliest expressions of the Christian faith. In the New Testament, Jesus speaks of his blood being a kaine diatheke, a ‘new covenant.’ The covenant is elucidated in Hebrews 8:8-12 and other texts, but it was preserved in the words of Jesus with this language in Luke 22:20 when at the Last Supper Jesus said, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Jesus’s blood was to provide the grounds for the ‘new covenant,’ in contrast to the old one his disciples knew from the Jewish scriptures (e.g., Jeremiah 31:31-34). Thus, the earliest Christians accepted the Jewish Scriptures as prophecies about Jesus and in time began to call the collection the ‘Old Testament’ and the writings about Jesus and early Christianity the ‘New Testament,’ since ‘testament’ was another word for ‘covenant.’ The covenant promises of God (berith in Hebrew) were translated in the Septuagint with the word diatheke. In classical Greek diatheke had meant ‘last will, testament,’ but in the Septuagint it is the chosen equivalent for God’s covenant with his people. The author of Hebrews plays on the double meaning, and when Luke records Jesus’ announcement at the Last Supper that his blood was instituting a ‘new covenant,’ or a ‘new testament,’ he is using the language in an explicit contrast with the old covenant, found in the Jewish scriptures. Soon, the writings that would eventually be chosen to make up the texts about the life and teachings of Jesus and the earliest expression of the Christian faith would be called the New Testament. This very distinction between the Old and New Testaments is based on the Septuagint’s language.”
The Hebrew and Greek terms that are translated as “circumcise” or “circumcision” in English (originally meaning of English term: “to cut around”) are (back-) translated in various ways:
Tetelcingo Nahuatl: “put the mark in the body showing that they belong to God” (or: “that they have a covenant with God”)
Indonesian: disunat — “undergo sunat” (sunat is derived from Arabic “sunnah (سنة)” — “(religious) way (of life)”)
Ekari: “cut the end of the member for which one fears shame” (in Gen. 17:10) (but typically: “the cutting custom”) (source for this and above: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
Hiri Motu: “cut the skin” (source: Deibler / Taylor 1977, p. 1079)
Garifuna: “cut off part of that which covers where one urinates”
Bribri: “cut the soft” (source for this and the one above: Ronald Ross)
Amele: deweg cagu qoc — “cut the body” (source: John Roberts)
Eastern Highland Otomi: “cut the flesh of the sons like Moses taught” (source: Ronald D. Olson in Notes on Translation January, 1968, p. 15ff.)
Newari: “put the sign in one’s body” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Following are a number of back-translations of Acts 7:8:
Uma: “After that, God made a connecting promise with Abraham, and he ordered that Abraham and all his children be circumcised. That circumcision custom became a sign of God’s promise with the descendants of Abraham. So, when the child of Abraham named Ishak was indeed born, he circumcised him on the eight day. After that also, Ishak circumcised Yakub his child. And Yakub circumcised his twelve children. And they became the ancestors of all us the Yahudi people.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Then God covenanted with Ibrahim and God said to Ibrahim that the male should be circumcised, a sign that they agreed to that covenant. Therefore when Isahak was born, Ibrahim circumcised him on the eight day. Isahak also, he circumcised his son Yakub, and Yakub he also circumcised his twelve children/sons. These are the ancestors/forefathers of our (incl.) Yahudi nation/tribe.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And Stephen said, ‘There was also a promise of God to Abraham. God commanded that all of them who are males should be circumcized because this is the sign of their agreement with the promise of God. Therefore when Abraham had Isaac, eight days after he was born, Abraham circumcized Isaac. And when Jacob was born to Isaac, he circumcized him also, and when Jacob had children also, he circumcized the twelve sons of his who are the ancestors of us (incl.) Jews.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “God also commanded plural Abraham to circumcise their male children as a sign of the agreement-he -presented to them. When Abraham’s child Isaac was born, he circumcised him on the eighth day. And that moreover was what Isaac did to his child Jacob. That was also what Jacob did to his twelve male children, our ancestors long ago.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “And then concerning God’s initiated-agreement with Abraham, God commanded that down through the generations they circumcize every male among them as a sign that they are included in that initiated-agreement of his. Therefore, when they gave birth to Isaac, when the eighth day came he was then circumcized. Well, Isaac was the father of Jacob, and Jacob was the father of twelve males, these being from whom the twelve clans of us Jews originated.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
The Hebrew, Latin, and Greek that is transliterated as “Jacob” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with a sign that signifies “lentil,” referring to the soup he gave his brother in exchange for his birthright (see Genesis 25:34). Note that another Spanish Sign Language sign for Jacob also users the sign for Jewish. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
In Finnish Sign Language it is translated with the signs signifying “smooth arm” (referring to the story starting at Genesis 27:11). (Source: Tarja Sandholm)
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 ta (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential ta (祂) is used.”
In that system one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and one 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 in the following way: “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 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, but most translations, especially those published in the 21st century, do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are 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. ).
See also this chapter in the World Atlas of Language Structures on different approaches to personal pronouns.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.