Lloyd Peckham explains the Mairasi translation: “In secret stories, not knowable to women nor children, there was a magical fruit of life. If referred to vaguely, without specifying the specific ‘fruit,’ it can be an expression for eternity.”
The Greek that is translated in English as “kneel” or “fall down” or “worship” are translated in Chichicapan Zapotec as bazuꞌnllihbi or “stand on knees.” (Source: Joseph Benton in OPTAT 1989/2, p. 65ff.)
Following are a number of back-translations of Mark 10:17:
Uma: “When Yesus was about to leave again on his journey, suddenly a person came running towards him and immediately knelt in front of him, and he asked a questions of him, he said: ‘Good teacher, what please must I do so I get good life forever?'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “So-then when Isa and company were about to go the different-places, a man came running to him and stood on his knees to humble himself before Isa, he said, ‘Sir, you are a good person. What shall I do so that I will be given everlasting life?'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And while Jesus and company were continuing, along, a man overtook them and knelt down before Jesus, and he said, ‘Teacher, the things you do are very good. What should I do so that I might be given eternal life?'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “When plural Jesus were setting-out, there was a man who ran to where he was. He knelt before him and said, ‘Good Lord, what must I do so-that I will have the life that has no end?'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “When Jesus was again setting out, there was a man who ran up to him. He bowed in front of him and questioned, saying, ‘Good Teacher, what do I have to do so that life which is without ending can be mine?'” (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.
ekporeuomenou autou eis hodon ‘as he was setting out on the journey,’ ‘as he was leaving for the trip.’
ekporeuomai (cf. 1.5) ‘go out,’ ‘proceed.’
eis hodon (cf. 6.8) ‘in the road,’ ‘on the way.’
prosdramōn heis kai gonupetēsas auton ‘a man running up and kneeling before him.’
prostrechō (cf. 9.15) ‘run to.’
heis ‘one’: here is the same as the indefinite pronoun tis ‘a certain one,’ ‘someone.’
gonupeteō (cf. 1.40) ‘kneel.’
didaskale agathe ‘good teacher’: the word ‘good’ here means ‘kind,’ ‘beneficent,’ ‘generous,’ not ‘efficient’ or ‘capable,’ as though the man were complimenting Jesus on his ability as a teacher; neither does it refer to the moral character of Jesus in the sense of ‘holy’ or something similar (cf. Lagrange).
hina zōēn aiōnion klēronomēsō ‘in order that I inherit eternal life?’
klēronomeō ‘inherit’: although the word may mean simply ‘obtain,’ ‘acquire,’ ‘possess,’ the literal meaning ‘to receive by lot,’ ‘to come into the inheritance of,’ better fits in with the Jewish concept of the people of Israel as God’s lot and eternal life as a gift, an inheritance, that man receives from God (cf. Ps. 37.11; Lagrange refers to Ps. Sol. 14.5, 10, which speak of Israel as the lot and inheritance of God, and of the just inheriting life).
zōē aiōnion (10.30) ‘eternal life’ (cf. 3.29 for aiōnion ‘age-long,’ ‘eternal’). It should be observed that the question is eschatological, from the point of view of Jewish theology of that time: “What must I do that in the resurrection from the dead eternal life be my lot?” The earliest expression of this eschatological concept is to be found in Dan. 12.2.
Translation:
Since this verse often begins an entirely new section, the use of ‘Jesus’ in place of ‘he’ may be required.
Where required by the cultural patterns, knelt before him may be expressed as ‘stooped down before’ or ‘bowed down before’ leaving implicit the exact position of the knees.
For teacher see 2.13.
Good Teacher as a phrase of direct address may not be permitted, since – though nouns as titles may be so used – they are often restricted in such a way that attributive adjectives cannot be used with them as modifiers. However, an expanded, attributive clause can often be employed, ‘Teacher, you who are good.’
Inherit cannot be translated literally in many languages since it would imply that someone has died and that the life which is inherited is the one which has just been given up, which has given some readers the impression that the Bible is talking about metempsychosis. In such instances one must use a verb meaning ‘receive,’ ‘come to possess,’ or ‘have.’
For certain problems related to eternal see 3.29, but in this context the difficulties are somewhat different because eternal is combined with life. Often eternal is translated as ‘lasting’ or ‘continuing,’ or by some idiomatic equivalent which indicates some type of continuity, e.g. ‘day with day’ (Laka) or ‘of all the years’ (Yaka). However, there are certain problems in this usage. For example, in Navajo the expression ‘continuous life,’ which had seemed for some time to be satisfactory, proved entirely erroneous, for the Navajos believe that all people possess ‘continuing life,’ in the sense that each succeeding generation is a demonstration of this continuing stream of life within the family unit. Accordingly, in Navajo it was necessary to translate ‘life without end.’ The same type of expression is used in Barrow Eskimo, Highland Puebla Nahuatl, Yucateco, Guerrero Amuzgo, and Pamona.
Inherit eternal life must undergo certain changes in languages in which life must be translated as a verb, e.g. ‘do in order to be able to live without end.’
Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1961. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.