complete verse (Luke 2:44)

Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 2:44:

  • Noongar: “The couple thought Jesus had gone with their relatives, so the two went a day and then started searching for Jesus among their friends and relatives.” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Uma: “They thought that he was following with their walking companions. They walked all day, only then did they look for him among their companions and relatives.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “They thought (mistakenly) that he was there together with their other traveling companions. They went for the whole day before they started to look for him among their relatives and their friends but he wasn’t there.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “They thought Jesus was there with some of their companions who were travelling. And when a day of journey had passed and they did not notice that Jesus was not there, then they looked for him among their relatives and their friends and they found that Jesus really was not there.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “because they thought he was accompanying their traveling-group-members. They walked for a day, then they looked-for (him) among their relatives and those they knew,” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Well, since Jose and spouse thought-mistakenly that Jesus was there somewhere in that crowd of people with whom they were traveling, they kept on with their journey all day. Well they were somewhat-surprised at the absence of Jesus. Therefore they looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances who were traveling with them.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)

pronoun for "God"

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 Kouya, Godié, Northern Grebo, Eastern Krahn, Western Krahn, and Guiberoua Béte, all languages of the Kru family in Western Africa, a different kind of systems of pronouns is used (click or tap here to read more):

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.

Translation: Chinese

在现代汉语中，第三人称单数代词的读音都是一样的（tā），但是写法并不一样，取决于性别以及是否有生命，即男性为“他”，女性为“她”，动物、植物和无生命事物为“它”（在香港和台湾的汉语使用，动物则为“牠”）。这些字的部首偏旁表明了性别（男人、女人、动物、无生命事物），而另一偏旁通常旁提示发音。

到1930年为止，基督教新教《圣经》经过整整一百年的翻译已经拥有了十几个译本，当时的一位圣经翻译者王元德新造了一个“神圣的”代词“祂”，偏旁“礻”表示神明。一般汉语读者会立即知道这字的发音是tā，而这个偏旁表示属灵的事物，因此他们明白这个字指出，三位一体的所有位格都没有性别之分，而单单是上帝。

然而，最重要的新教圣经译本（1919年的《和合本》）和天主教圣经译本（1968年的《思高圣经》）都没有采用“祂”；虽然如此，许多其他的圣经译本采用了这个字，另外还广泛出现在赞美诗和其他基督信仰的书刊中。（资料来源：Zetzsche）

《吕振中译本》的几个早期版本也使用“祂”来指称“上帝”；这个译本的《新约》于1946年译成，整部《圣经》于1970年完成。克拉默斯（Kramers）指出：“‘他’的这种新写法（即‘祂’）产生了一个小问题，就是在指称耶稣的时候，是否一律使用这个敬语代词？《吕振中译本》遵循的原则是，在称呼耶稣这个人的时候，用一般的‘他’，而在称呼耶稣神性的时候，特别是升天之后的耶稣，则用尊称‘祂’。”

Translator: Simon Wong

Translation commentary on Luke 2:44 – 2:45

Exegesis:

nomisantes de … ēlthon ‘but, supposing … they went’; de ‘but’ contrasts ouk egnōsan ‘they did not know’ (v. 43) with nomisantes ‘supposing…,’ the clause which is dependent upon nomisantes (i.e. auton einai en tē sunodia ‘him to be in the company’) motivates their going.

nomizō (also 3.23) ‘to believe,’ ‘to suppose.’

en tē sunodia ‘in the company of travellers.’

sunodia ‘group of people travelling together.’

hēmeras hodon ‘a day’s journey’; the accusative hodon ‘way,’ hence ‘journey,’ is of extent. Jewish sources differ considerably as to the length of a day’s journey, ranging from 15 to 40 miles (cf. Strack-Billerbeck II, 149) but it is safe to assume that a caravan of pilgrims would not do more than 15-20 miles a day.

kai anezētoun auton ‘and they were looking for him.’ The imperfect tense of anezētoun is best understood as a durative or iterative imperfect: Joseph and Mary supposed Jesus to be somewhere among the company of travellers and were, therefore, looking for him during that day’s journey among their relatives and friends.

anazēteō ‘to look for,’ especially of looking for human beings, with an implication of difficulty and thoroughness.

en tois suggeneusin kai tois gnōstois ‘among the relatives and acquaintances’; without a possessive pronoun or its equivalent, which is to be supplied from the context. For suggenēs cf. on 1.36.

gnōstos (also 23.49) ‘known,’ hence, when used of persons, ‘acquaintance,’ ‘friend.’

(V. 45) kai mē heurontes hupestrepsan ‘and not having found him, they returned.’ Here the aorist participle heurontes indicates an event preceding the event referred to by the main verb hupestrepsan ‘they returned.’

anazētountes auton ‘looking for him,’ indicating an event which is simultaneous with the event referred to by the main verb hupestrepsan ‘they returned.’

Translation:

Supposing him to be … they went … Rendering the participle by a co-ordinate or subordinate clause one may say something like, ‘They supposed that he was…; so/therefore/consequently they went…,’ or, ‘They went…, since they supposed that….’ To suppose implies that the author does not vouch for the opinion concerned, or even knows it to have been wrong, as brought out by Tae,’ which uses a verb basically meaning ‘to substitute,’ ‘to mistake a person for another,’ then, ‘to suppose wrongly.’ If one has to make explicit the implied direct discourse, one may say e.g. ‘thinking, “Certainly he is (or, we will find him) in…” .’

The company, or, ‘group of those who-were travelling same road with them’ (Kituba), ‘people on-the-same-journey’ (Balinese), ‘people that walk in-the-same-group’ (Tae’); Medumba, using the same compound pronoun as in 1.58, has ‘people who they-plus-they came.’

They went a day’s journey, or, ‘as much as one day they went’ (Tboli), ‘they did one day on the road’ (Kituba), ‘they travelled one-day’s-measure’ (Batak Toba).

And they sought him, or, expressing simultaneity, ‘and in the meanwhile they sought him (or, looked for him, or, tried to find him).’

Kinsfolk, see on 1.58.

Acquaintances usually refers to relationships which are somewhat less intimate than friendship. It can often be rendered by a derivation of, or a phrase built on, ‘to know,’ cf. ‘group of people who know each other’ (Thai), ‘people whom they-plus-they know’ (Medumba). Elsewhere the closest natural equivalent is a more generic term, covering both intimate and casual relationships, e.g. in Kituba, Batak Toba.

(V. 45) When they did not find him explains what follows; hence, “They did not find him, so they went back…” (Good News Translation).

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.

Translation commentary on Luke 24:4

Exegesis:

kai egeneto ‘and it happened,’ cf. on 1.8. The main clause is introduced by kai idou for which cf. on 1.20.

en tō aporeisthai autas peri toutou lit. ‘during their being at a loss about this,’ articular accusative and infinitive. toutou refers to v. 3.

aporeō ‘to be at a loss,’ ‘to be uncertain,’ ‘to be perplexed’ (cf. aporia in 21.25).

andres duo epestēsan autais ‘two men came upon them’ cf. on 2.9.

en esthēti astraptousē ‘in dazzling clothing,’ cf. on 23.11. For astraptō cf. on 17.24.

Translation:

For perplexed cf. on 9.7 and 21.25.

Stood by them, cf. on 2.9.

In dazzling apparel, or, ‘dazzlingly clothed,’ ‘wearing dazzling garments.’ For dazzling, i.e. ‘shining brilliantly,’ cf. also on 9.29.

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.