Orthodox Icons are not drawings or creations of imagination. They are in fact writings of things not of this world. Icons can represent our Lord Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the Saints. They can also represent the Holy Trinity, Angels, the Heavenly hosts, and even events. Orthodox icons, unlike Western pictures, change the perspective and form of the image so that it is not naturalistic. This is done so that we can look beyond appearances of the world, and instead look to the spiritual truth of the holy person or event. (Source )
Following is a hand colored stencil print on momigami of Peter by Sadao Watanabe (1970):
Image taken with permission from the SadaoHanga Catalogue where you can find many more images and information about Sadao Watanabe. For other images of Sadao Watanabe art works in TIPs, see here.
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.
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.
Following are a number of back-translations of Mark 10:28:
Uma: “After that, Petrus said to Yesus: ‘Yet we (excl.), we (excl.) [emphatic] have left everything in order to follow you.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “So-then Petros spoke. ‘Look at us (excl.),’ he said. ‘We (excl.) have already left everything and we (excl.) are already following you.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And then Peter said, he said, ‘Just look, we have left all of our possessions so that we might follow you.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Then Pedro said, ‘And how-about us (excl.)? Because we (excl.) have left everything so-that we (excl.) would become your (sing.) disciples.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Pedro spoke saying, ‘Well as for us (excl.), Master, isn’t it so that we have left/deserted everything now to go-around with you?'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
ērxato legein ‘he began to say.’ Revised Standard Version is probably justified in giving full force to archomai ‘begin’ in this verse, rather than regarding it as virtually meaningless auxiliary (cf. 1.45), as does Translator’s New Testament.
idou hēmeis ‘behold we’: the pronoun ‘we’ is probably emphatic, in contrast with the rich man who was not willing to leave anything (cf. Gould).
For aphiēmi ‘leave’ cf. 2.5, and akoloutheō ‘follow’ cf. 1.18. Gould and Taylor call attention to the use of the aorist aphēkamen ‘we left,’ describing the decisive act of renunciation, and the perfect ēkolouthēkamen ‘we have followed,’ describing the permanent role of discipleship.
Translation:
Lo in some languages is equivalent to ‘look here’ or ‘mind you.’ It is an emphatic element, designated to call special attention to what is said. It does not imply literal ‘looking.’
Left everything may require expansion to ‘left all that we had,’ in order for it to be understood in the sense of renunciation rather than merely of getting up and departing, or of inadvertently leaving things behind.
For follow see 1.17.
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.