inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Luke 20:22)

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 this verse, translators typically select the inclusive form (including Jesus).

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

complete verse (Luke 20:22)

Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 20:22:

  • Noongar: “Tell us, if our law says if we must give taxes to the Roman Governor, or not?'” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Uma: “So, that is why we (excl.) ask that you say to us (excl.), Teacher: according to the customs of our religion, are we indeed allowed/is it all right to pay taxes to Kaisar, or not?'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “What do you say. Is it following/in-accordance-with our (incl.) law if we (incl.) pay taxes to the King Leader of the Roman tribe or not?'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “What do you think — will we break the Law if we pay tax to our (incl.) king there in the town of Rome?'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Therefore please tell (us) if we (excl.) are breaking our (incl.) law if we (excl.) pay taxes to the Emperor in Roma.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Well what about this, is it in harmony with what Moises commanded that we (incl.) pay the payment which the Romano Impiradur who rules us causes to be paid? Is it possible/acceptable or not?'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Luke 20:22

Exegesis:

exestin … ē ou ‘is it lawful…, or (is it) not?’ for exestin cf. on 6.2.

Kaisari phoron dounai ‘to give, i.e. to pay, taxes to Caesar.’ For kaisar cf. on 2.1; here it is used as a title.

phoros (also 23.2) ‘tribute,’ ‘taxes,’ probably referring to direct taxes on land, or personal property, cf. IDB IV, 520ff.

Translation:

Is it lawful for us to give … or not, or, ‘shall we give, (or on the contrary) shall-we-not-give…’ (Enga). In some languages it is preferable to state the case first, e.g. ‘that we all pay taxes to the King-of-kings, is it right or not’ (Balinese). For lawful see also on 6.2. Us. One may hesitate here between exclusive and inclusive; the former is probably preferable because of the clear exclusive ‘we’ in v. 21, and the contrasting ‘you’ implied in the imperative in v. 25.

Tribute, preferably, ‘(personal) taxes.’

Caesar, or ‘the emperor/big chief/king-of-kings.’

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.