snake

In Kuy culture, snakes are eaten, so here the Kuy translation says the equivalent of “a yellow snake” as these are taboo (source: David Clark). For the same reason, the term used in Barasana-Eduria is “eel” since eels are detested among the speakers (source: Larry Clark in Holzhausen 1991, p. 45).

See also serpent.

complete verse (Luke 11:11)

Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 11:11:

  • Noongar: “I ask you, you fathers: ‘When your son asks for fish, you will give him a snake, will you?” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Uma: “Are there any of you who would give a snake to your child if he asked for meat?” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “You who have children, if your child asks you for fish, do you give him a snake?” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Now as for you older people, if your child begs a fish from you, it’s not possible that you will give him a snake.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Because look, you fathers, if your child asks for a dried-fish, do you by-any-chance (RQ) give him a snake?” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “For you who are fathers, is a snake what you (pl.) will give to your child who asks for fish?” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Suba-Simbiti: “Which parent is there, who if his child will ask for bread, he would give him a rock? Or [if] he would ask him for a fish, he would give him a snake?” (Source: R.M. Mészároš in Journal of Translation 18/2022, p. 115ff. )

formal pronoun: Jesus addressing his disciples and common people

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.

Translation commentary on Luke 11:11 – 11:12

Exegesis:

tina de ex humōn aitēsei ton patera ho huios ichthun, kai anti ichthuos ophin autō epidōsei lit. ‘whom of you, (being) the father, the son will ask for a fish, and will (he) give him a snake instead of a fish?’ Semantically the first clause, referring to the son’s asking, is subordinate to the second one, referring to the father’s giving. Instead of connective kai Nestle reads interrogative mē, which makes the second clause asyndetic and stresses the fact that the anticipated answer will be in the negative. In ton patera and ho huios the article has the force of a possessive pronoun. ton patera is apposition to tina. aiteō is construed with double accusative, i.e. that of the person who is asked, and the thing which is asked for. For epididōmi cf. on 4.17. ophis, cf. on 10.19.

(V. 12) ē kai aitēsei ōon, epidōsei autō skorpion ‘or also (if) he asks for an egg, will he give him a scorpion?,’ continuation of v. 11 with omission of the interrogative pronoun. A scorpion with its limbs closed around it resembles an egg. ōon. For skorpios cf. on 10.19.

Translation:

What father among you, if…, will … give … This rhetorical question may better be introduced by ‘would any one of you that is a father…’ (cf. The Four Gospels – a New Translation), ‘is there a father among you who…’ (cf. New English Bible). In the rather long and involved sentence the clause if … fish may better be moved to final position, cf. .’.. will give his son a snake instead of the fish he asks him’ (Sranan Tongo), or (with a further simplification), “… will offer his son a snake when he asks for fish” (New English Bible). Another possibility is to divide the sentence in two, e.g. ‘Some of you are fathers. If your son…, would/do you give…’ (cf. Phillips), ‘Is this what a father among you does? If his son asks…, does he give…’ or in the second person, .’.. you as father…’ with corresponding shifts.

Father … his son, a double reference to the father-son relationship, which seems to be undesirable in some languages, cf. ‘suppose you are someone’s father; if you would be-asked for a fish, would you give…’ (Balinese), ‘is this what you do? if your son or daughter asks you for…’ (Tzeltal). The reference to the male sex is not relevant here; hence, ‘child’ in many versions, and cf. the Tzeltal quotation above.

Instead of a fish give him a serpent, or, “give him a snake instead” (An American Translation), or, ‘instead of it’; and see above. The meaning of instead may have to be circumscribed, e.g. ‘as a substitute for,’ and cf. ‘not give a fish but give a serpent’ (Trukese, similarly Marathi). Fish, see on 9.13; a reference to food may have to be added, e.g. ‘fish to eat’ (Tzeltal). Serpent, or, ‘snake,’ or the name of some local species or equivalent. Where snakes are used for food one should choose a term referring to an inedible snake, or still more generically, to something inedible.

(V. 12) Egg may have to be specified, ‘egg of a hen’ (Tae’); in Toba-Batak (where ‘egg’ can also mean ‘testicle’) a more respectable term is used (etym. ‘what-is-put-in,’ i.e., in the nest). Eggs are sometimes not thought of as food (e.g. formerly in East Nyanja and Yao), or are not permitted for food for women and children (as was the case amongst the Medumba); then one will have to seek some edible equivalent.

Scorpion, see on 10.19, but where a local equivalent is used the renderings may have to be different, because here the reference is not to something that is poisonous but to something that is inedible, and has a specific form (see Exegesis).

Quoted with permission from Reiling, J. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1971. For this and other handbooks for translators see here . Make sure to also consult the Handbook on the Gospel of Mark for parallel or similar verses.