17His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
The Greek and Hebrew that is translated in English as “grain” (or: “corn”) is translated in Kui as “(unthreshed) rice.” Helen Evans (in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 40ff. ) explains: “Padddy [unthreshed rice] is the main crop of the country and rice the staple diet of the people, besides which [grain] is unknown and there is no word for it, and it seemed to us that paddy and rice in the mind of the Kui people stood for all that corn meant to the Jews.” “Paddy” is also the translation in Pa’o Karen (source: Gordon Luce in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 153f. ).
Other translations include: “wheat” (Teutila Cuicatec), “corn” (Lalana Chinantec), “things to eat” (Morelos Nahuatl), “grass corn” (wheat) (Chichimeca-Jonaz) (source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.), or ntimumma lujia / “seeds for food” (Lokạạ — “since Lokạạ does not have specific terms for maize and rice that can be described as grains”) (source: J.A. Naudé, C.L. Miller Naudé, J.O. Obono in Acta Theologica 43/2, 2023, p. 129ff. )
The Greek that is translated as “granary” or “barn” in English is translated in Chichewa as nkhokwe or “storage bin,” “the difference is that the biblical variety was usually found underground, while the Chewa nkhokwe is normally built above ground.” (Source: Wendland 1987, p. 72)
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “thresh” in English is illustrated for use in Bible translations in East Africa by Pioneer Bible Translators like this:
Image owned by PBT and Jonathan McDaniel and licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin that is translated as “threshing floor” in English is translated in Kim with twal or “termite mound” which are used to build threshing floors. (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 3:17:
Noongar: “He brings his dish and he will sift the seed. He will beat all the seeds and gather the good seeds into his grain house. But he will burn the husks in a fire. That fire burns forever.'” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uma: “He can be compared to a person who winnows rice. He separates the good rice [lit, rice that has contents] from the empty ones until it is clean. The good rice he puts into his granary, the empty he burns in a fire that blazes on forever.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “He will separate the good people and the bad people. He is figuratively like a person winnowing rice, he separates the kernels and the chaff. The kernels he will store in the storage-container (a huge basket) but the chaff he will burn with fire which cannot be put out.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Since He is separating the good people and the bad people. He is like the person winnowing rice, who removes the hull from the rice. The rice will put into the storehouse, but the hull, he will burn it with fire which cannot be put out,’ said John.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “He is compared to a person holding a winnowing-basket that he will use-to-winnow the pounded rice. Its meat (lit. fruit), he will go and store it in his house, but as for the husks, he will burn them in the fire that never-goes-out.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “He is the one who will judge the people. For it’s like he is holding his tossing-tool with which he will toss the grain-stalks. He will separate the grain to store in his silo. But the straw, he will throw it on the fire which can never go out till forever.'” (Source: Tagbanwa 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.
The structure of v. 17 is, syntactically, as follows: hou … autou is a relative clause, ‘in whose hand (is) the shovel,’ with estin ‘is’ understood; this is followed by two final infinitives: diakatharai ‘in order to clean,’ and sunagagein ‘in order to bring together,’ both dependent upon the preceding clause. Then follows an independent clause to de achuron … asbestō ‘but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.’ This structure, brings out that the primary purpose of the winnowing is to clean and to gather the grain (indicated by the two final infinitives), but that he will inevitably also burn the chaff (indicated by co-ordinate clause).
hou … autou ‘whose … his.’ The relative pronoun hou goes either with to ptuon ‘whose shovel’ (so, with shift from the relative to independent clause, Revised Standard Version, Translator’s New Testament, New English Bible) or with cheiri ‘in whose hand’ (so Nieuwe Vertaling, Willibrord, Bible de Jérusalem, Zürcher Bibel). Its antecedent is autos in the preceding clause and to this autou also refers. Clauses of this type are best understood as Hebraistic and the relative pronoun refers either in a general way to the clause as a whole (like the relative noun ʾasher) or is taken up again by the personal pronoun. It is therefore preferable to connect hou with cheiri, and not with to ptuon.
ptuon (only here and parallel Mt. 3.12 in the N.T.) ‘(winnowing) shovel,’ a fork-like instrument with which the threshed grain was thrown into the wind. Here as in Jer. 15.7 the winnowing symbolizes judgment.
diakatharai tēn halōna autou ‘in order to clean his threshing-floor,’ indicating the purpose of the winnowing announced in the preceding clause.
diakathairō ‘to clean out,’ ‘to clear.’
halōn ‘threshing-floor,’ or ‘threshed grain still lying on the threshing floor.’ The latter is preferable.
sunagagein ton siton ‘in order to gather the grain.’
sitos ‘grain,’ either a specific sort of grain such as ‘wheat,’ or grain in general.
eis tēn apothēkēn autou ‘into his barn,’ or, ‘granary.’
apothēkē ‘storage place,’ here for grain, ‘barn,’ ‘granary,’ probably a large pit with a building overhead (cf. IDB II, 469 s.v. ‘granary’).
to de achuron katakausei ‘but the chaff he will burn.’ The place of achuron in the clause indicates emphasis, cf. Bible de Jérusalem, ‘and as to the chaff, he will burn it.’
achuron ‘chaff.’
katakauō ‘consume with fire,’ ‘burn up.’
puri asbestō ‘with unquenchable fire’ or “fire that can never go out” (New English Bible), i.e. the fire of everlasting judgment (cf. Is. 66.24), or of hell (cf. Mk. 9.43).
Translation:
One can use this metaphor in many cultures, where necessary shifting to another cereal, such as rice, see below on “wheat”. Such a shift usually entails adjustment in the rendering of the accompanying terms; in some cases the tools and processes can be referred to by terms associated with rice, although for the cereal the term ‘wheat,’ known as a foreign product, is used. Where such rather close cultural equivalents are lacking, the translator may choose some other kind of fruit or agricultural product that is stored after its waste products have been removed, adjusting the terms for tools and processes accordingly. In some cases translators have introduced foreign terms, e.g. in Pohnpeian and Trukese, transliterating English ‘shovel’ and ‘wheat,’ and clarifying the winnowing process by illustrations.
His winnowing fork is in his hand, or, ‘his hands already hold the winnowing basket’ (Balinese). Often it is better to have a personal subject, e.g. ‘he is holding the winnowing fork in his hands,’ ‘he has already taken the winnowing basket’ (Manobo), where necessary shifting to a simile, e.g. ‘he is like a man who is holding….’ Winnowing fork, or, ‘(winnowing) basket/tray,’ or an instrumental derivation of ‘to winnow’ (Batak Toba). Where such a technical term is lacking one may use a descriptive phrase, e.g. ‘dirt shaking out thing’ (Ekari), or a generic term such as ‘tool’ (Kekchi), ‘thing’ (Kituba), the specific use of which is sufficiently made clear by the subsequent clauses.
Wheat, or the (indigenous or borrowed) name of another small grain used for food in the culture or known to the receptors as being used for food in other cultures, e.g. ‘rice,’ ‘millet,’ ‘barley,’ ‘corn/maize’; or an expression built upon such a name, such as ‘seed like rice’ (Korku), ‘foreign rice’ (Uab Meto).
Clear his threshing floor, or, preferring the other meaning of Gr. halōn, ‘winnow (or, sift) his threshed grain,’ cf. ‘winnow what-has-been-threshed (lit. trodden-out)’ (Toraja-Sa’dan), ‘remove hulls of rice that he has pounded’ (Kituba), or the reference to threshing or its equivalent, ‘clean-well skin-of wheat’ (Trukese), ‘fan the rice’ (Sranan Tongo). Some versions apparently try to combine the two meanings that Gr. halōn can have, cf. ‘winnow the heap on the threshing floor’ (Kannada), ‘clean his wheats in their place’ (Pohnpeian).
Gather … into his granary, or, ‘into his house-of storage’ (Pohnpeian, Trukese), ‘into the storeroom,’ or simply, ‘into its place’; cf. also on “barns” in 12.18. In some places threshing or its equivalent is not done before but after the storing in the granary, e.g. in Bali, where bunches of rice are kept in the rice-barn unpounded, and every few days the quantity needed is brought down, pounded and winnowed. Hence the phrase in question had to be rendered in Balinese by, ‘the grains … he gathers and stores-away’ (i.e. in a big vessel in the house where the pounded rice to be used in the next days is kept).
The term the chaff summarizes all the waste products, i.e. empty ears, stalks and straw, and can, if necessary, be described with one or more of these terms, cf. ‘its empty ones and straw’ (Toraja-Sa’dan), ‘the straw’ (Manobo), ‘the hulls’ (Kituba, similarly Ekari, Pohnpeian).
Unquenchable, or, ‘not to be put out,’ or, in active construction, ‘that is not dying’ (Kituba), ‘that never goes out’ (Nyakyusa), ‘that you can’t quench (lit. kill)’ (Sranan Tongo).
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.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.