“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.”
Following are a number of back-translations of John 4:39:
Uma: “In that Samaria town, many people believed in Yesus, because they heard the words of that woman who said: ‘He told/uncovered to me all my actions.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “So-then many Samariya people from the town Sikar believed in Isa because of what the woman said. She said hep, ‘He has told me all that I have done in the past.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And there were many Samaritans there who believed in Jesus because of what the woman said when she said, ‘He prophesied to me everything I ever did.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “As for the ones-from-Samaria who resided in Sikar, many of them believed in Jesus on-account-of the woman’s saying that Jesus had told her everything she had done.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Many were the Samaritanos in that town who believed-in/obeyed Jesus, because of what that woman was testifying, which is what she said, that ‘He told everything I’ve done.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Many of the inhabitants of Sychar in the land of Samaria believe in Jesus because of what the woman said. For the woman had said, ‘He told me all I have done.'” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
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.
Many of the Samaritans in that town believed in Jesus is literally “But from that town many believed in him of the Samaritans.” Very few translations are literal here; most of them, like Good News Translation, attempt a clearer way to convey the meaning. Note Jerusalem Bible “Many Samaritans of that town had believed in him” and New English Bible “Many Samaritans of that town came to believe in him.”
Believed in Jesus (“him”) is a favorite Johannine expression (7.31; 8.30; 10.42; 11.45; 12.42). Initially the faith of the Samaritans was based on the woman’s testimony, rather than on any mighty work they had seen Jesus do (compare 2.11,23; 7.31; 11.45). But others came to believe because of their own immediate encounter with Jesus (see verse 42, and note also 8.30). Some translators are reluctant to use here the same expression for “believed in” employed in many other contexts in the Gospel of John. To them it seems impossible that the Samaritans could have really “believed in Jesus” solely on the basis of what the woman had said. This tendency to “dilute” the meaning of the phrase “believe in” may reflect a wrong concept of the biblical meaning of “trust.” At any rate, it is not legitimate to shift the evident intent of the writer simply because the context appears to be somewhat unusual.
Had said is literally “had witnessed.” (On the meaning of the verb “to witness,” see 1.7.)
It is true that the statement He told me everything I have ever done is a rhetorical exaggeration, technically called hyperbole. Obviously during the short conversation Jesus had with this woman, he did not relate to her everything she had done throughout her life. However, it is not justifiable to modify the statement of the writer on this basis. In all languages there are degrees of rhetorical exaggeration, and in this particular setting the statement of the woman can be readily understood and evaluated.
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 .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.