55though you do not know him. But I know him; if I would say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him, and I keep his word.
Following are a number of back-translations of John 8:55:
Uma: “But really you do not know him. As for me, I know him. If for example I say that I do not know him, I am lying like you. Because I really know him, and I follow his words.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “You don’t even know God. But I, I know him. If for example I would say that I don’t know God, I would be like you a liar. But I really, really know God and I follow all that he has commanded me.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “however you do not know who he is. As for me, by contrast, I know who he is. If I said that I didn’t know him I would be a liar just like you. However, I know who he is and I obey his words to me.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “You have not come-to-know him, but I by-contrast, I know-him. If I were to say that I didn’t know him, I would equal/take-after you liars. But I of-course know-him and I believe/obey what he says.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “You really don’t know him. But as for me, I really know him well. For if I say I don’t know him, I would be a liar like you who are liars. But it is true that I know him. I follow/obey and stand up for everything he says.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “But you don’t know him. I know him. If I should say that I didn’t know God, I would be lying just as you do. But I truly know him and I respect what he tells me.” (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.
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 his disciples, individuals and/or crowds with the formal pronoun, showing respect.
In most Dutch translations, Jesus addresses his disciples and common people with the informal pronoun, whereas they address him with the formal form.
Two different Greek verbs are translated known and know in this verse, though they are used synonymously. Compare, for example, 7.28-29 (you do not know him, but I know him), which uses the second (oida) of these verbs twice, with 10.15 (The Father knows me and I know the Father), which uses the first (ginōskō) of these verbs twice. Both verbs also occur here in the perfect tense, but the verb oida, though perfect in form, has a present meaning. This explains the basis for Good News Translation: have … known and know.
But I do know him, and I obey his word indicates that, according to the theology of John’s Gospel, obedience is an essential part in “knowing God.” In fact, this teaching is a basic affirmation of the Old and New Testaments alike. To know God means that one follows him in faithful obedience. In 15.10 and 17.6 obedience is again stressed as an important element in this relation.
As the result of this distinctive meaning of the verb know in biblical contexts, it is important to avoid a receptor language term which will merely suggest “knowledge about.” The emphasis is upon “personal acquaintance with” or direct involvement in an interpersonal relation. This type of context requires a term for “know” which will suggest the most intimate interpersonal acquaintance and involvement.
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.