drink

In Telugu different verbs for humans drinking and animals drinking are required.

He deliberately took time to draw near to social outcasts (image)

“Jesus is dressed in a different style of clothing than the style of the woman who is shown as a Lanna Thai northerner. It is unusual for him to talk to a person from a different region, especially a woman. The clothes, the roof of the house in the background, and the dipper for water all indicate that this is in northern Thailand.”

Drawing by Sawai Chinnawong who employs northern and central Thailand’s popular distinctive artistic style originally used to depict Buddhist moral principles and other religious themes; explanation by Paul DeNeui. From That Man Who Came to Save Us by Sawai Chinnawong and Paul H. DeNeui, William Carey Library, 2010.

For more images by Sawai Chinnatong in TIPs see here.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (John 4:12)

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 the first part of this verse (“our father Jacob” in English translations), translators often select the inclusive form, whereas for the second part (“gave us this well” in English translations) the exclusive form.

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

The Yagua translators (who, along with the translations into Malay, Sundanese, and Balinese, chose the exclusive for both parts of the verse) justify this by saying “Our choice here is exclusive assuming that the Samaritan woman to maintain the independent and factious spirit which this account shows existed between Jews and Samaritans.”

Source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 165ff.

Another opinion on using the inclusive pronoun for this verse and the remainder of the story:

“The Samaritan woman, in my view, is trying to get the better of Jesus; she appeals to Jacob (v. 12) and to ‘our fathers’ (v. 20) as to authorities higher than Jesus. If this is true, then it was important for her to show that those authorities were acknowledged by Jesus also. Therefore, we can imagine her to have thought or said ‘Your and my ancestor’ (v. 12) or ‘ancestors’ (v. 20) — inclusive pronoun in both verses.

“As for the phrase ‘who gave us the well’, there is certainly much truth in the consideration: “Since the well was in Samaritan territory, presumably she would use the exclusive form.” Yet, the inclusive can be defended here also, I think. With the remark that Jacob and his sons drank from the well, she is pointing back to a time anterior to the present antithesis between Jew and Samaritan; the well was given to ancestors of both peoples. Moreover, she comes to fetch water from the well and Jesus hopes to quench his thirst with its water. “The well is of common interest for both you and me,” she may have meant. It seems possible to find a third appeal to higher authority in v. 25. The woman has acknowledged Jesus as a prophet, but to the Messiah even a prophet has to bow; he, the prophet, as well as she, will have to be shown all things by the Messiah. Accepting this interpretation, we again have to use the inclusive ‘we’, Yet there is a difference with the verses first mentioned. In v. 12 and v. 20 the pronominal first person plural was used in phrases connected with the past; v. 25 points to the future, to the time when the Messiah will come and teach. A consciousness among the Samaritans of a Messianic belief common to both Jews and themselves is a necessary presupposition of the interpretation of v. 25 given above. So we are led to the preliminary question whether such a consciousness existed in Jesus’ times.”

Source: J. L. Swellengrebel in The Bible Translator 1959, p. 37.

formal pronoun: Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well

Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.

As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator 2002, p. 210ff.), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.

Here, Jesus is addressing the woman with an informal pronoun whereas she addresses him with a formal pronoun, showing respect.

In Gbaya, where God is always addressed with the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́, the common way to address superiors, the woman addresses him with the less courteous nɛ́ in verse 4:9 but then switches to the courteous plural form ɛ́nɛ́. (Source Philip Noss)

Likewise in Burmese where in the Common Language Version (publ. 2005) the Samaritan woman changes her language level from the Common to the Royal and Religious as she discovers the real nature of Jesus. Jesus appears here as a divine revealer. (Source: Gam Seng Shae, The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff.)

In most Dutch translations, both Jesus and the woman use the formal pronoun, whereas in Afrikaans and Western Frisian Jesus addresses the woman informally and she addresses him with the formal pronoun.

complete verse (John 4:12)

Following are a number of back-translations of John 4:12:

  • Uma: “This well is an inheritance from Yakub, our ancestor long ago. He himself drank water from here, so also his children and his livestock. Do you (sing.) think that your (sing.) life surpasses Yakub, that you (sing.) can give water that is better than the water from this well?'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “This well was left to us (excl.) by our (incl.) forefather Yakub. His whole family and including their animals drank from this well. Is it that your authority exceeds that of Yakub?'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Our ancestor long ago Jacob, is the one who made this well, and he drank here, and his children drank here, and their domestic animals. Are you greater than Jacob?'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Are you (sing.) do-you-suppose more-important/greater than our ancestor Jacob? Because it was emphatically he who bequeathed this well, and that’s where-he and his children -drew-water what they and their livestock were-drinking.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Can you yet exceed our (incl.) ancestor Jacob who caused us (excl.) to inherit this well, this well from which they drew water for themselves to drink and also his livestock?'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “Our ancestor Jacob left the well here for us. He got water here for drinking. And his children drank it and also the stock he owned drank the water. Are you greater than he then?'” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

Jacob

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)


“Jacob” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España

In German Sign Language it is a sign that shows the touching of the hip, described in Genesis 32:25:


“Jacob” in German Sign Language (source: Taub und katholisch )

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)


“Jacob” in Finnish Sign Language (source )

See also Esau.

Translation commentary on John 4:12

In Greek this verse is one long interrogative sentence. Good News Translation makes it a statement followed by a question, Moreover, the question whether Jesus is greater that Jacob is retained in Good News Translation until the last part of the verse, since it is the climactic element in what the woman has to say. The other information conveyed in the verse (that Jacob gave the well, and that he, his sons, and his flocks all drank from it) is background information, forming the basis for the question concerning the relation between Jesus and Jacob.

Our ancestor Jacob is literally “our father Jacob,” but in such a context the reference is clearly to an ancestor rather than to a “father.” The statement that Jacob and his family drank from the well indicates that the water was good, and the observation that his flocks also drank from it indicates that the supply of water was plentiful.

There is an interesting problem of inclusive and exclusive first person plural in the phrase our ancestor. If an inclusive form of “our” is used, it means that the woman acknowledged that she, a Samaritan, and Jesus, a Jew, had a common ancestor in Jacob. If an exclusive form is used, it indicates that the woman emphasized that Jacob was the ancestor of the Samaritans and not of the Jews. The translator is thus forced to interpret the woman’s intentions. From a purely historical point of view it would be important to use the inclusive first person plural, but in terms of this particular context and the way the Samaritan woman sets her own tradition against the Jewish tradition, one could argue for the exclusive first person plural. It would appear that translators are divided as to which form to use in this context. This division does not involve any serious theological problem, but it does highlight matters of emphasis.

It may be important to make a distinction between “drank from it” and “drank water that came from it.” In some languages such a statement as “drank from it” would mean that the water was at surface level and that cattle could drink directly from the well, as from a spring or pool. However, it seems clear that in this context the translation should be “drank water that came from the well,” to indicate that even in ancient times the well was deep (verse 11).

You don’t claim to be greater than Jacob, do you? may more literally be rendered “You are not greater than Jacob, are you?” However, it is clear that the woman is implying that Jesus is claiming to be greater than Jacob, and Good News Translation makes this claim explicit (see also New American Bible “Surely you do not pretend to be greater than our ancestor Jacob…?”). In order to indicate clearly that such a claim is possibly being made by Jesus, one may translate “You do not say that you are greater than Jacob, do you?” or “Is it possible that you think you are greater than Jacob was?”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .