net

The Greek terms that are used for what is translated as “net” in English are translated in languages like Navajo where fishing with nets is not known as “instruments to catch (or: bring out) the fish.” (Source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)

In Rundi the term urusenga is used. Rosemary Guillebaud (in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 15ff. ) tells this story:

“[People living close to lakes] produced further problems for us over fishing terms when we reached the revision of the Gospels. Fishing is practically unknown in the mountain streams and rivers, so there is hardly any vocabulary for it up-country. In Mat. 4:18 we read that Jesus saw two brethren “casting a net into the sea.” The word we used for net (urusenga) is used all over Rundi for a fishing net, whatever it is like, but when I read this to some people who live by the lake they said it was the wrong word, as from the context this happened during the daytime, and urusenga-fishing is only done at night. It appears that the urusenga is something like a shrimping net, and is used on moonless nights, when the fishermen hold flares over the side of the boat and attract a certain variety of very small fish which swim about in shoals. The net they use for day-time fishing is something like a drag-net and is called urukwabu. On enquiry inland, I never discovered a single person who knew this word. It was obviously the right one, technically speaking, but we felt that the few thousand lake-dwellers could not be weighed against almost the entire population of the country, so we had to employ the up-country word, putting an explanatory note in the margin that by the lake this net is called urukwabu.”

Click or tap here to see a short video clip showing net-fishing in biblical times (source: Bible Lands 2012)

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Luke 5:5)

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 exclusive form (excluding Jesus).

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

formal pronoun: disciples addressing Jesus

Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.

As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator 2002, p. 210ff.), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.

Here, individual or several disciples address Jesus with the formal pronoun, expressing respect. Compare this to how that address changes after the resurrection.

In most Dutch as well as in Western Frisian and Afrikaans translations, the disciples address Jesus before and after the resurrection with the formal pronoun.

See also this devotion on YouVersion .

complete verse (Luke 5:5)

Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 5:5:

  • Noongar: “‘Lord,’ Simon said. ‘We worked very hard all night and caught no fish. But, if you say, I will drop the nets.’ He dropped the nets and caught many fish so the nets nearly broke.” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Uma: “Simon said: ‘Teacher, we (excl.) worked all last night, but there was not even one [uses classifier for animals] in our (excl.) nets. But even so, I will still throw it, since you (sing.) commanded us (excl.).'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “Simon answered he said, ‘Sir, we have persevered the whole night but we have caught nothing. But because you say it now, we will throw them out.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And Simon answered, ‘The whole night we were netting and we didn’t even catch one; but if that’s what you say, we will net again.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “‘Yes, Sir/Lord,’ said Simon, ‘but you-should-realize (self-sympathy particle) that we (excl.) have worked-the-entire night (lit. done-to-the-limit the night) net-fishing and we have gotten emphatically nothing. But if you (sing.) say so, we’ll (excl.) go-ahead-and (lit. even-if we) lower our (excl.) nets anyway.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Simon replied, ‘Master, we wasted-a-lot-of-effort all-last-night, and we didn’t even get one. But because you are the one saying it, we will again drop our net.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Luke 5:5

Exegesis:

epistata (always in the vocative and, except in 17.13, only used by the disciples) ‘master!’ Several commentators think that epistata carries a note of special authority, but as shown by the parallels quoted in Moulton-Milligan the emphasis is rather on an intimate, though respectful, relationship than on authority.

di’ holēs nuktos kopiasantes ouden elabomen ‘having toiled all night we caught nothing.’ The participial phrase describes what they did, the main clause the result. Since the result is not in accordance with the work the participial phrase is implicitly concessive.

kopiaō (also 12.27) ‘to work hard,’ ‘to toil.’

epi de tō rēmati sou ‘at your word.’ epi here indicates that on which the subsequent action is based. rēma here ‘order,’ ‘direction.’ The phrase expresses confidence in Jesus or merely reluctant obedience. The latter appears to be preferable.

chalasō ‘I will let down,’ in the singular after chalasate (v. 4) in the plural.

Translation:

Master can often best be rendered by the term for ‘(religious) teacher’ (see 3.12). The use of the possessive, ‘my master/teacher,’ may be helpful to suggest the more intimate connotation. This respectful intimacy is an important clue for the level of language to be used when one has to render the conversations between Jesus and his disciples in honorific languages.

We toiled … and took …, or, ‘though we toiled…, we caught…,’ ‘we toiled … and (yet) we caught….’ The verb has also been rendered, ‘to try hard (lit. to-the-bone)’ (Pohnpeian), ‘to seek with weariness’ (Ekari). In Chuukeseone has to add ‘in-vain’; in Tboli the work has to be specified, ‘we worked … netting, but not even a little there was a catch we netted.’

All night. A reference to the past may have to be added, e.g. ‘last night’ (Trukese, similarly Toraja-Sa’dan). The night may be thought of as part of the preceding or of the present day. The latter is the case in Foe, which therefore uses near-past tense forms (see on 1.19).

At your word, or, ‘(only) because you say (or, tell me to do) so.’

I will let down the nets. Since more participators than one are implied Tagalog has to say, ‘I will cause that the nets be let down.’

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.