devil

The Greek that is translated in English as “devil” is sometimes translated with indigenous specific names, such as “the avaricious one” in Tetelcingo Nahuatl, “the malicious deity” in Toraja-Sa’dan (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel), or in Yoruba as èṣù. “Èṣù is thought of as bringing evil, but also as giving protection. The birth of a child may be attributed to him, as the names given to some babies show, Èṣùbiyi (Èṣù brought this forth), and Èṣùtoyin (Èṣù is worthy of praise).” (Source: John Hargreaves in The Bible Translator 1965, p. 39ff. )

Other translations include:

  • Muna: Kafeompu’ando seetani or “Master of the evil-spirits” (source: René van den Berg)
  • Mairasi: owe er epar nan or “headman of malevolent spirits” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
  • Central Subanen: Palin or “Perverter” (incl. in 2 Cor. 6:15) (source: Robert Brichoux in OPTAT 1988/2, p. 80ff. )
  • Huehuetla Tepehua: “chief of demons”
  • Ojitlán Chinantec: as “head of the worldlings” (source for the last two: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125).
  • Mandarin Chinese móguǐ (魔鬼), literally “magical ghost.” This is a term that was adopted from Buddhist sources into early Catholic writings and later also by Protestant translators. (Source: Zetzsche 1996, p. 32)
In Lak and Shughni it is translated with terms of feminine gender. Vitaly Voinov tells this story (click or tap here to see the rest of this insight):

“In the Lak language of Dagestan, the names ‘Iblis’ and ‘sheytan’ (referring to Satan and his minions, respectively) in this language were borrowed from the Arabic Islamic tradition, but they entered Lak as feminine nouns, not masculine nouns. This means that they grammatically function like nouns referring to females in Lak; in other words, Laks are likely to think of Iblis as a woman, not a man, because of the obligatory grammatical patterning of Lak noun classes. Thus, when the team explained (in Russian) what the Lak translation of Jesus’ wilderness temptation narrative at the beginning of Matthew 4 said, it sounded something like the following: ‘After this, the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Iblis… .The temptress came to Jesus, and she said to Him…’

“Since this information (that the devil is a female spirit) is part of the very name used for Satan in Lak, nothing can really be done about this in the translation. The Lak translator did not think that the feminine gender of Iblis should cause any serious misunderstandings among readers, so we agreed to leave it in the translation. Prior to this, I had never heard about languages in which the devil is pictured as a woman, but recently I was told by a speaker of the Shughni language that in their language Sheytan is also feminine. This puts an interesting spin on things. The devil is of course a spirit, neither male nor female in a biologically-meaningful sense. But Bible translators are by nature very risk-aversive and, where possible, want to avoid any translation that might feed misleading information to readers. So what can a translator do about this? In many cases, such as the present one, one has to just accept the existing language structure and go on.”

tempt, temptation

The Greek that is typically translated as “tempt” or “temptation” in English is translated in Noongar as djona-karra or “reveal conduct” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang) and in Tibetan as nyams sad (ཉམས་​སད།), lit. “soul + test,” or in some cases as slu (སླུ།) or “lure / lead astray” (for instance in 1 Cor. 7:5 or Gal 6:1) (source: gSungrab website )

See also tempted by Satan.

complete verse (Luke 4:2)

Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 4:2:

  • Noongar: “Satan tempted him in the desert for 40 days. All these days he ate no bread or meat, so Jesus was hungry after many days.” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Uma: “He stayed there forty nights, and he was tempted by the King of Evil-ones. For that length of time, there was nothing that he ate. After forty nights were past, he was hungry.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “He was there forty days and he was tempted there by the leader of demons. As long as he was there he did not eat and after that he was hungry.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And there, for forty days, Satan tested Jesus to see if he would sin. And during those days there was nothing that Jesus had eaten and on the fortieth day He was very hungry.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “He stayed there for forty days and meanwhile the Diablo kept-trying to tempt him (by itself ‘tempt’ implies successfully). Jesus absolutely did not eat during those days. When that was finished, he felt his hunger.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “How long he was there was forty days, during which he didn’t eat anything at all. What Satanas did was, he tested Jesus as to whether he could cause (him) to fall (into sin, fig.) Well, since for that length of time Jesus had eaten nothing, he was now very-hungry.” (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 4:1 – 4:2

Exegesis:

Iēsous de ‘and Jesus’ refers back to 3.21f after the genealogy of 3.23-38, as is shown by what follows, see below.

plērēs pneumatos hagiou ‘full of the Holy Spirit,’ qualifies Iēsous. The omission of the article tou before pneumatos does not change the meaning of the phrase, cf. on 1.15. Here the Holy Spirit referred to is the Spirit who had descended upon Jesus after his baptism, cf. 3.22.

plērēs (also 5.12) ‘full’ (cf. also Acts 6.3; 7.55; 11.24). As contrasted with ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’ in 1.41, 67 the phrase ‘full of the Holy Spirit’ refers to a permanent condition, not a momentary experience.

hupestrepsen apo tou Iordanou ‘returned from the Jordan,’ i.e. from the place where the events of 3.21f had taken place. It is not indicated whither he returned but the best assumption is to connect this clause with v. 14: Jesus left the place of his baptism in order to return to Galilee where he had come from (cf. Mk. 1.9), but on his way home he remained for 40 days in the wilderness.

kai ēgeto en tō pneumati en tē erēmō ‘and he was led about in the Spirit in the wilderness.’ The imperfect tense of ēgeto is durative. For en tō pneumati cf. on 2.27. The phrase does not mean that the Spirit is the agent (as it is viewed in Mk. 1.12) but rather the guiding principle or instrument.

agō ‘to lead,’ here in the passive, meaning ‘to be led about’: Jesus went, guided by the Holy Spirit, from place to place in the wilderness.

(V. 2a) hēmeras tessarakonta ‘for forty days,’ goes either with ēgeto or with the subsequent peirazomenos ‘being tempted,’ preferably with the former.

peirazomenos hupo tou diabolou ‘being tempted by the devil.’ peirazomenos is coextensive with ēgeto and the phrase refers to temptations preceding those described in vv. 4-13.

peirazō (also 11.16) ‘to put to the test,’ ‘to tempt,’ passive ‘to be tested,’ here with hostile intent.

diabolos lit. ‘the slanderer.’

Translation:

Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, or, better to bring out the connexion with 3.22, ‘full of the H. Sp. as he was now, Jesus,’ similarly but in co-ordinated sentences in Sranan Tongo; or, ‘after Jesus had (thus) become full of the H. Sp. he.’ For full of the Holy Spirit cf. on “filled with the H. Sp.” in 1.15, where tense and aspect, however, are different.

Returned from the Jordan may require two verbs, ‘left the J. and went back’ (cf. Kituba, Sranan Tongo). Jordan, or, ‘the bank/region of the (river) J..’

And was led … If it is preferable to start a new sentence here, the existing relationship with what precedes (as indicated in Exegesis) may require the use of a transitional phrase such as e.g., ‘As he went home he was led….’

(He) was led by the Spirit for … in …, or, more explicitly, ‘he was led about by the Spirit for … in…’ (cf. Zürcher Bibel, Bible de Jérusalem), ‘he went about (or, he stayed) for … in … with the Spirit as his guide, or, and the Spirit guided him.’

(V. 2a) For forty days, or, ‘during (a period of) forty days.’ The phrase qualifies the verb ‘was led,’ but indirectly also ‘tempted,’ cf. “for forty days was led … and tempted…” (New English Bible). Even a rather small number like 40 may have to be expressed analytically, resulting in such a cumbersome phrase as, ‘the number of a complete hand, the number of a complete foot, and the number of a complete hand, the number of a complete foot, such a number of days’ (Auca, which, using hand and feet morphemes for ‘five’ and above, can count to 20 and in multiples of 10 or 20).

Tempted by the devil, or expressing the connexion more explicitly, ‘during which days (or, where) he was tempted by the devil’ (or, an active construction); the clause is sometimes better rendered as a co-ordinated one. For to tempt, i.e. ‘to try to make a person sin.’ Some versions use indigenous specific names, ‘the avaricious one’ (Tetelcingo Nahuatl), ‘the malicious deity’ (Toraja-Sa’dan); others have borrowed the name Satan, for which see on 10.18.

Translation commentary on Luke 4:2b

Exegesis:

kai ouk ephagen ouden ‘and he ate nothing.’ The double negation ouk … ouden strengthens the negative aspect of the clause. The aorist ephagen ‘he ate’ is probably used because the continued action is viewed as having reached its end.

suntelestheisōn autōn ‘when they had come to an end,’ absolute genitive; autōn refers to ‘those days’ in the preceding clause.

sunteleō (also v. 13) ‘to bring to an end,’ here in the passive ‘to be brought to an end,’ ‘to be over,’ rather than ‘to be completed.’

epeinasen ‘he was hungry.’ The aorist is ingressive: only after the 40 days of fasting did Jesus really feel that he was hungry.

Translation:

He, or, Jesus, cf. on 1.8.

In those days, or, “all that time” (New English Bible), ‘during that whole-period’ (Balinese).

When they were ended, or, ‘at the end of those days (or, of that time, of it),’ or simply, “afterwards” (Phillips, similarly Sranan Tongo).

He was hungry, cf. on 1.53. Some idiomatic ways of expressing this phrase are, ‘hunger killed him’ (Sranan Tongo), ‘he wanted to-begin-to eat’ (Pohnpeian).

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.