“Only qualified, trained leaders know the dharma (truth) yet Jesus made claims that threatened the establishment. He is being chased out of the temple because his people thought him merely a carpenter. They intended to throw him down the cliff but he just passed by.”
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “Sabbath” in English is rendered as “day we rest” in Tzotzil, in Mairasi as “Jew’s Rest Day,” in Quiotepec Chinantec as “day when people of Israel rested,” in Shilluk as “day of God,” in Obolo as Usen Mbuban or “Holy Day,” and in Mandarin Chinese as ānxírì (安息日) or “rest day” (literally: “peace – rest – day”).
(Sources: Tzotzil: Marion Cowan in Notes on Translation with Drill, p. 169ff; Mairasi: Enggavoter 2004; Quiotepec Chinantec: B. Moore / G. Turner in Notes on Translation 1967, p. 1ff.; Shilluk: Nida 1964, p. 237; Obolo: Enene Enene; Chinese: Jost Zetzsche)
In the old Khmer version as well as in the first new translation this term was rendered as “day of rest” (Thngai Chhup Somrak / ថ្ងៃឈប់សំរាក). Considered inadequate to convey its religious meaning (not only about cessation of work, but also in honor of Yahweh as the Creator), the committee for the Today’s Khmer Version (publ. 2005) decided to keep the Hebrew word and use its transliterated form Thgnai Sabath (ថ្ងៃសប្ប័ទ). “The Buddhist word Thngai Seil ‘day of merits’ used by some Catholics was once under consideration but was rejected because it did not receive unanimous support.” (Source: Joseph Hong in The Bible Translator 1996, p. 233ff.)
In Spanish, the translation is either día de reposo (“day of rest”) or sábado (usually: “Saturday,” derived from the Greek and Hebrew original. Nida (1947, p. 239f.) explains that problem for Spanish and other languages in its sphere of influence: “In translation ‘Sabbath’ into various aboriginal languages of Latin America, a considerable number of translators have used the Spanish sábado, ‘Saturday,’ because it is derived from the Hebrew sabbath and seems to correspond to English usage as well. The difficulty is that sábado means only ‘Saturday’ for most people. There is no religious significance about this word as the is with ‘Sabbath’ in English. Accordingly the [readers] cannot understand the significance of the persecution of Jesus because he worked on ‘Saturday.’ It has been found quite advantageous to use the translation ‘day of rest,’ for this accurately translated the Hebrew meaning of the term and resolves the problem in connection with the prohibitions placed upon some types of activities.”
In French Sign Language it is translated with a sign that depicts closing of the blinds of a store:
In many English translations the Greek terms “hieron” (the whole “temple” in Jerusalem or specifically the outer courts open to worshippers) and “naos” (the inner “shrine” or “sanctuary”) are translated with only one word: “temple” (see also for instance “Tempel” in German [for exception see below] and “tempel” in Dutch, Danish, or Afrikaans).
Other languages make a distinction: (Click or tap here to see more)
Navajo: “house in which worship is carried out” (for naos)
Balinese: “inner part of the Great Temple” (“the term ‘inner part’ denoting the hindmost and holiest of the two or three courts that temples on Bali usually possess”) vs. “Great Temple”
Telugu: “womb (i.e. interior)-of-the-abode” vs. “abode”
Thai: a term denoting the main audience hall of a Buddhist temple compound vs. “environs-of-the-main-audience-hall”
Kituba: “place of holiness of house-God Lord” vs. “house-God Lord”
Shipibo-Conibo: “deep in God’s house” vs. “God’s house” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
Germandas Buch translation by Roland Werner (publ. 2009-2022): “inner court of the temple” (Tempelinnenhof) vs. “temple”
Languages that, like English, German, Dutch, Danish, or Afrikaans don’t make that distinction include:
Toraja-Sa’dan: “house that is looked upon as holy, that is sacred, that is taboo and where one may not set foot” (lit. “house where-the-belly-gets-swollen” — because taboo is violated — using a term that is also applied to a Muslim mosque) (source for this and the three above: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
Aguaruna: “the house for talking to God” (source for this and above: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.)
Guhu-Samane: “festival longhouse of God” (“The biiri, ‘festival longhouse’, being the religious and social center of the community, is a possible term for ‘temple’. It is not the ‘poro house’ as such. That would be too closely identified with the cult of poro. The physical features of the building, huge and sub-divided, lend it further favor for this consideration. By qualifying it as ‘God’s biiri’ the term has become meaningful and appropriate in the context of the Scriptures.”) (Source: Ernest Richert in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. )
Enga: “God’s restricted access house” (source: Adam Boyd on his blog)
Another distinction that tends to be overlooked in translations is that between hieron (“temple” in English) and sunagógé (“synagogue” in English). Euan Fry (in The Bible Translator 1987, p. 213ff. ) reports on this:
“Many older translations have simply used transliterations of ‘temple’ and ‘synagogue’ rather than trying to find equivalent terms or meaningful expressions in their own languages. This approach does keep the two terms separate; but it makes the readers depend on explanations given by pastors or teachers for their understanding of the text.
“Translators who have tried to find meaningful equivalents, for the two terms ‘temple’ and ‘synagogue’ have usually made a distinction between them in one of two ways (which focus on the contrasting components of meaning). One way takes the size and importance of the Temple to make a contrast, so that expressions such as ‘sacred meeting/ worship house of the Jews’ and ‘big sacred meeting/worship house of the Jews’ are used. The other way focuses on the different nature of the religious activity at each of the places, so that expressions such as ‘meeting/worship house of the Jews’ and ‘sacrifice/ceremony place of the Jews’ are used.
“It is not my purpose in this article to discuss how to arrive at the most precise equivalent to cover all the components of meaning of ‘temple’. That is something that each translator really has to work through for himself in the light of the present usage and possibilities in his own language. My chief concern here is that the basic term or terms chosen for ‘temple’ should give the reader of a translation a clear and correct picture of the location referred to in each passage. And I am afraid that in many cases where an equivalent like ‘house of God’ or ‘worship house’ has been chosen, the readers have quite the wrong picture of what going to the Temple or being in the Temple means. (This may be the case for the word ‘temple’ in English too, for many readers.)”
Here are some examples:
Bambara: “house of God” (or: “big house of worship”) vs. “worship house” (or: “small houses of worship”)
Toraja-Sa’dan: “house where-the-belly-gets-swollen” (see above) vs. “meeting house for discussing matters concerning religious customs” (and “church” is “house where one meets on Sunday”)
Navajo: “house in which worship is carried out” vs. “house of gathering” (source for all above: Bratcher / Nida)
Click or tap here to see a short video clip about Herod’s temple (source: Bible Lands 2012)Click or tap here to see a short video clip showing synagogues in New Testament times (source: Bible Lands 2012)
Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 4:16:
Noongar: “Then Jesus went to Nazareth. He had grown up in that village, and on the Sabbath Day, he went to the synagogue. He stood up to read the Bible,” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uma: “Yesus went to Nazaret, the town where he grew up. And like his custom/he usually did, he entered into the house of prayer in the Sabat day, the worship day of the Yahudi people. He stood to read the Holy Book.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Isa went to Nasaret the place where he grew up. When the Saturday came, the day of-no-work for the Yahudi, he went to the prayer-house as he always did. Then he stood up in order to read.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Then Jesus went to Nazareth, the town where he had grown up, and on the day Saturday, which is the day of rest, Jesus went into the church because it was His custom. And He stood up because He wanted to read the written word of God.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Then Jesus went to Nazaret where he grew-up. When the day arrived that was the time-for-resting of the Jews which was Saturday, he went to the synagogue, because that was his custom. And he stood up to read the word of God.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Jesus continued his journey going home to Nazaret, which was in that district of Galilea. As for Nazaret, that’s the town where he grew up. Well, like he’d become accustomed to, he went into the worship-place on the Day of Rest. He stood up to read from the word of God.” (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.
kai ēlthen eis Nazara ‘and he came to Nazareth.’ kai marks here the transition from general description to a specific narrative, as brought out in “so he came to Nazareth” (New English Bible, cf. also Phillips, Schonfield, Willibrord, Menge). Nazara other form of the name Nazareth.
hou ēn tethrammenos ‘where he had been brought up.’ The clause refers back to 2.39, 51f.
hou ‘(the place) where, or, whither.’
trephō ‘to feed,’ ‘to nourish,’ hence in the passive ‘to be brought up,’ ‘to grow up.’
kai eisēlthen … en tē hēmera tōn sabbatōn eis tēn sunagōgēn ‘and he went on the day of the sabbath to the synagogue.’ kai implies that what happened between his arrival and his going to the synagogue is irrelevant to the narrative.
sabbaton or sabbata (plural, without difference in meaning) ‘sabbath,’ i.e. the last day of the week which was holy to God and destined for his worship, or ‘week,’ cf. IDB IV, 135-141.
kata to eiōthos autō ‘according to his custom,’ lit. ‘according to what was customary for him,’ going with eisēlthen … eis tēn sunagōgēn.
eiōthos participle of eiōtha ‘to be accustomed,’ used as a substantive ‘that which is customary,’ ‘custom.’ The following dative autō is due to the verbal origin of the word and indicates the person for whom it is customary (cf. also Acts 17.2).
kai anestē anagnōnai ‘and he stood up to read.’
anistēmi (cf. on 1.39) is used here literally.
anagnōnai is final infinitive, ‘in order to read.’ Since Jesus was already widely known as a teacher, he may have been invited to read and expound the lesson in Nazareth too, but the fact that there is no hint at such an invitation seems to suggest that Jesus himself wanted to address the Nazarenes because he had a special message for them.
anaginōskō ‘to read (aloud).’
Translation:
He (at the beginning of a new section, cf. also 4.31; 5.1, 17; 6.12, etc.). As often, the translator has to consider whether this pronominal reference must be specified. In doing so he should take into account that a pronoun referring to the principal character of a story sometimes has a wider range of occurrence than one referring to secondary characters. But even with this reservation, specification often is necessary. The use of an honorific form of the pronoun and/or the verb can often solve the problem, e.g. in Pohnpeian, Balinese, Tae.’
He came to Nazareth. If the receptor language distinguishes between intentional and unintentional acts, the first form can best be chosen here.
Where he had been brought up, or, ‘in which he had grown up (lit. become big from little)’ (Marathi), ‘the town of his-bigness (i.e. his native town)’ (Batak Toba). The indication of the past tense may go with ‘place,’ cf. ‘the former place (where) he was reared’ (Balinese). To bring up is in this context sometimes expressed by ‘to take-care-of’ (Javanese), or, ‘to take-care-of when young’ (Malay).
And, often better a locative qualification, ‘there,’ ‘during his stay there,’ or a temporal one, ‘on the sabbath day.’
As his custom was, or, ‘as he used to do,’ “as he had always done” (The Four Gospels – a New Translation). The phrase may better be transposed, to the end of the sentence, or to its beginning; or one may have to restructure the whole, e.g. ‘he used to go (or, a habitual aspect form of that verb) to … on the sabbath day; so he did again now, or, there.’
On the sabbath day, or, ‘on the next sabbath day,’ ‘when the sabbath (day) came’; on a possible transposition of the phrase see above. For sabbath (also in 4.31; 6.1f, 5, 7, 9; 13.10, 14ff; 14.1, 3, 5; 23.54, 56).
Stood up here implies ‘came to the front,’ as the lectern was close to the front seats.
To read. To make clear that reading aloud is meant Tzeltal renders, ‘to say what God’s Book says.’ In some receptor languages the addition of a direct or an indirect object is obligatory, or desirable, e.g. ‘to read the Scriptures’ (Japanese Kogotai), ‘to read to the people’ (Sranan Tongo). In some Muslim countries it is possible to use the technical term for reciting verses of the Koran (cf. e.g. Sundanese); the Batak Toba term for ‘to read’ is related to the conjunction ‘it,’ probably because originally the principal reading material was to be found in manuals of magic, where each of the prescriptions began with ‘if (such and such happens).’
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.