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 inclusive form (including the chief priests, elders, and scribes talking among themselves).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Following are a number of back-translations of Mark 11:31:
Uma: “The Yahudi leaders talked among themselves, they said: ‘How should we answer him? If we say his power was from God, he will say to us: ‘If that’s the case, why didn’t you believe him?'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “So-then they planned/discussed, they said, ‘If for example we say that Yahiya’s authority to bathe the people was from God, he will say, ‘Na, why did you not believe Yahiya?'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Then they asked each other saying, ‘If we say that it was God, then he will ask us why we didn’t believe John.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Then they asked-each-other saying, ‘What shall we answer? If we say that God is the one who gave his authority, Jesus will probably say, ‘If that is so, then why didn’t you believe/obey him?'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “When they heard that, they talked among themselves, ‘If we (incl.) say, ‘From God,’ he will then say to us, ‘Well why don’t you believe/obey him?'” (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.
Instead of dielogizonto ‘they debated’ of the majority of editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus and Soden have elogizonto ‘they reasoned.’
After legontes ‘saying’ Soden, Taylor, and Kilpatrick add ti eipōmen; ‘what shall we say?’ which is omitted by the majority of modern editions of the Greek text.
Exegesis:
dielogizonto pros heautous ‘they were debating among themselves,’ ‘they were arguing with one another.’
dialogizomai (cf. 2.6) ‘discuss,’ ‘debate.’
pros heautous (cf. 9.10) ‘among themselves.’
dia ti ‘why?’ (also in 2.18; 7.5).
episteusate (cf. 1.15) ‘you believed’: not in the Christian sense of ‘to have faith’ by means of which God’s grace effects salvation, but in the sense of believing John, i.e. accepting his message as true.
autō ‘him’: grammatically this could be ‘it,’ i.e. John’s baptism, the subject of the question (v. 30). There is nothing in Marcan usage of pisteuō ‘believe’ to compel decision one way or the other: ‘him,’ however, is the almost unanimous choice of translators (Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale has à sa parole ‘in his message’).
Translation:
Argued may be rendered ‘talked back and forth,’ a good description of what must have taken place among the men gathered to trap Jesus.
From heaven, as a highly elliptical expression, may require some contextual expansion, e.g. ‘the baptism was from heaven.’ Otherwise ‘from heaven’ might be related to the immediately preceding verb of speaking.
If we say may need to be translated as ‘if we reply’ and similarly he will say may require a rendering such as ‘he will ask,’ verbs which give some clue to the following forms.
Believe him carries the meaning of ‘believe what he said’ or ‘trust his words.’
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.