13Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.
The Greek that is translated as “fig tree in leaf” or similar in English is translated in Mamaindé as “a tree, a stick like a cashew-stick, a fig-called stick, a leafy stick.” In Mamaindé, “when new information is introduced in the nominal phrase, and the information is somewhat complex, but revolves around a single central theme, appositional nominal phrases are used to build up a total concept, rather as the cycles are used to build up a whole discourse using cyclic repetition.” (Source: Peter K. E. Kingston in Notes on Translation 1973, p. 13ff.)
The Greek that is translated in English as “fig tree” is translated in Lokạạ with figi, an indigenized transliteration of the English “fig.”
“The Lokạạ translators noted that they could not use the name of their local fig kẹkamati, which is very close to the fig family but only a shrub. This is because of the appearance of the Greek term for fig tree in verses such as John 1:48, where the fig tree is an enjoyable place for sitting in the shade. The Lokạạ translators decided to use an iconic translation of the English “fig”, which they indigenised as figi in Lokạạ. Since the term figi could not easily be connected to the indigenous term kẹkamati, readers would not have difficulty with passages such as John 1:48, in which people sit under the fig tree.” (Source: J.A. Naudé, C.L. Miller Naudé, J.O. Obono in Acta Theologica 43/2, 2023, p. 129ff. )
Following are a number of back-translations of Mark 11:13:
Uma: “Still far away, he saw an ara tree that had abundant leaves–yet it was not the time for fruiting. He went to that tree and look to see if perhaps there was fruit. But there wasn’t even one.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “So-then from far off he saw a tree they call igira which had many leaves. He went close perhaps he might find fruit. When he got there, he only saw leaves because it was not the season for the igira to have fruit.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “He looked down and saw a leafy tree called fig. Jesus went over to it to see if there was any fruit on it. But when he got there he saw that there was no fruit on it, but rather only leaves. It was not yet the time for fruit.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “He saw-in-the-distance a fig tree with many leaves, and he approached it to see if it had fruit, but when he arrived where the tree was, it only had leaves, because it was not-yet the season-for-fruit for figs.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “He saw not far away an igos tree with luxuriant foliage. He approached it to see if there was fruit, for the nature of the igos is that bearing fruit accompanies sprouting leaves. However no, it was just leaves, and for another thing it wasn’t yet time for igos fruiting. It had just sprouted leaves.” (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.
apo makrothen ‘from a distance’: this adverbial phrase modifies the verb idōn ‘seeing,’ ‘when he saw.’
sukēn (11.20, 21; 13.28) ‘a fig tree.’
echousan phulla ‘having leaves’: the participle functions as an adjective in the predicate position, ‘which had leaves.’
phulla (13.28) ‘leaves’: at this season of the year (the week before Passover) it was not uncommon for a tree already to be covered with leaves (cf. the commentaries).
ēlthen ei ara ti heurēsei en autē ‘he went (to see) if perchance he will find anything on it.’
ei … heurēsei ‘if he shall find,’ ‘whether he would find’: for another example of this form of indirect question (with the verb in the future indicative) cf. 3.2.
elthōn ep’ autēn ‘coming to it,’ ‘when he got there’: for this use of epi ‘upon,’ ‘to.’
kairos (cf. 1.15) ‘time,’ ‘season’: the season for ripe figs started about the first of June.
sukōn (only here in Mark) ‘of figs,’ i.e. ‘for figs.’
Translation:
Fig tree may be (1) transliterated, e.g. ‘a tree called fig’ or ‘a fig tree,’ borrowing fig from the prestige language of the area, or (2) translated, using the local equivalent.
Anything may need to be translated as ‘fruit,’ for obviously he was not looking for animals or birds – as some translations have implied.
It was not the season may need to be made somewhat more specific, for some languages require a verb indicating that the season had passed or that the season had not as yet begun, in which case the latter is correct.
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.