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 psalmist and the people).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
The Hebrew adonai in the Old Testament typically refers to God. The shorter adon (and in two cases in the book of Daniel the Aramaic mare [מָרֵא]) is also used to refer to God but more often for concepts like “master,” “owner,” etc. In English Bible translations all of those are translated with “Lord” if they refer to God.
In English Old Testament translations, as in Old Testament translations in many other languages, the use of Lord (or an equivalent term in other languages) is not to be confused with Lord (or the equivalent term with a different typographical display for other languages). While the former translates adonai, adon and mare, the latter is a translation for the tetragrammaton (YHWH) or the Name of God. See tetragrammaton (YHWH) and the article by Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff. for more information.
In the New Testament, the Greek term kurios has at least four different kinds of use:
referring to “God,” especially in Old Testament quotations,
meaning “master” or “owner,” especially in parables, etc.,
as a form of address (see for instance John 4:11: “Sir, you have no bucket”),
or, most often, referring to Jesus
In the first and fourth case, it is also translated as “Lord” in English.
Most languages naturally don’t have one word that covers all these meanings. According to Bratcher / Nida, “the alternatives are usually (1) a term which is an honorific title of respect for a high-ranking person and (2) a word meaning ‘boss’, ‘master’, or ‘chief.’ (…) and on the whole it has generally seemed better to employ a word of the second category, in order to emphasize the immediate personal relationship, and then by context to build into the word the prestigeful character, since its very association with Jesus Christ will tend to accomplish this purpose.”
When looking at the following list of back-translations of the terms that translators in the different languages have used for both kurios and adonai to refer to God and Jesus respectively, it might be helpful for English readers to recall the etymology of the English “Lord.” While this term might have gained an exalted meaning in the understanding of many, it actually comes from hlaford or “loaf-ward,” referring to the lord of the castle who was the keeper of the bread (source: Rosin 1956, p. 121).
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight
Following are some of the solutions that don’t rely on a different typographical display (see above):
Iyansi: Mwol. Mwol is traditionally used for the “chief of a group of communities and villages” with legal, temporal, and spiritual authority (versus the “mfum [the term used in other Bantu languages] which is used for the chief of one community of people in one village”). Mwol is also used for twins who are “treated as special children, highly honored, and taken care of like kings and queens.” (Source: Kividi Kikama in Greed / Kruger, p. 396ff.)
Binumarien: Karaambaia: “fight-leader” (Source: Oates 1995, p. 255)
Warlpiri: Warlaljamarri (owner or possessor of something — for more information tap or click here)
We have come to rely on another term which emphasizes God’s essential nature as YHWH, namely jukurrarnu (see tetragrammaton (YHWH)). This word is built on the same root jukurr– as is jukurrpa, ‘dreaming.’ Its basic meaning is ‘timelessness’ and it is used to describe physical features of the land which are viewed as always being there. Some speakers view jukurrarnu in terms of ‘history.’ In all Genesis references to YHWH we have used Kaatu Jukurrarnu. In all Mark passages where kurios refers to God and not specifically to Christ we have also used Kaatu Jukurrarnu.
New Testament references to Christ as kurios are handled differently. At one stage we experimented with the term Watirirririrri which refers to a ceremonial boss of highest rank who has the authority to instigate ceremonies. While adequately conveying the sense of Christ’s authority, there remained potential negative connotations relating to Warlpiri ceremonial life of which we might be unaware.
Here it is that the Holy Spirit led us to make a chance discovery. Transcribing the personal testimony of the local Warlpiri pastor, I noticed that he described how ‘my Warlaljamarri called and embraced me (to the faith)’. Warlaljamarri is based on the root warlalja which means variously ‘family, possessions, belongingness’. A warlaljamarri is the ‘owner’ or ‘possessor’ of something. While previously being aware of the ‘ownership’ aspect of warlaljamarri, this was the first time I had heard it applied spontaneously and naturally in a fashion which did justice to the entire concept of ‘Lordship’. Thus references to Christ as kurios are now being handled by Warlaljamarri.” (Source: Stephen Swartz, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )
Mairasi: Onggoao Nem (“Throated One” — “Leader,” “Elder”) or Enggavot Nan (“Above-One”) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Obolo: Okaan̄-ene (“Owner of person(s)”) (source: Enene Enene)
Lotha Naga: Opvui (“owner of house / field / cattle”) — since both “Lord” and YHWH are translated as Opvui there is an understanding that “Opvui Jesus is the same as the Opvui of the Old Testament”
Seediq: Tholang, loan word from Min Nan Chinese (the majority language in Taiwan) thâu-lâng (頭儂): “Master” (source: Covell 1998, p. 248)
Thai: phra’ phu pen cao (พระผู้เป็นเจ้า) (divine person who is lord) or ong(kh) cao nay (องค์เจ้านาย) (<divine classifier>-lord-boss) (source: Stephen Pattemore)
Arabic often uses different terms for adonai or kurios referring to God (al-rabb الرب) and kurios referring to Jesus (al-sayyid الـسـيـد). Al-rabb is also the term traditionally used in Arabic Christian-idiom translations for YHWH, and al-sayyid is an honorary term, similar to English “lord” or “sir” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin).
Tamil also uses different terms for adonai/kurios when referring to God and kurios when referring to Jesus. The former is Karttar கர்த்தர், a Sanskrit-derived term with the original meaning of “creator,” and the latter in Āṇṭavar ஆண்டவர், a Tamil term originally meaning “govern” or “reign” (source: Natarajan Subramani).
Burunge: Looimoo: “owner who owns everything” (in the Burunge Bible translation, this term is only used as a reference to Jesus and was originally used to refer to the traditional highest deity — source: Michael Endl in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 48)
Aguacateco: Ajcaw ske’j: “the one to whom we belong and who is above us” (source: Rita Peterson in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 49)
Konkomba: Tidindaan: “He who is the owner of the land and reigns over the people” (source: Lidorio 2007, p. 66)
Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew adonai was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments: “Another case is the use of kurios referring to Jesus. For Yahweh (in English Bibles: ‘the Lord‘), the Septuagint uses kurios. Although the term kurios usually has to do with one’s authority over others, when the New Testament authors use this word from the Septuagint to refer to Jesus, they are making an extraordinary claim: Jesus of Nazareth is to be identified with Yahweh.”
oude tēn graphēn tautēn anegnōte; ‘have you not read even this scripture?’: in such a context oude means ‘not even’ (cf. Lagrange ‘at least this scripture?’) rather than ‘not’ (cf. Moffatt). The scripture quoted is Ps. 118.22-23, quoted exactly as the Septuagint translates it.
graphē (only here in singular; in 12.24; 14.49 in plural) ‘writing,’ ‘(passage of) scripture’: the singular refers to a particular passage in the O.T., in accordance with normal use of the word in the N.T.
anaginōskō (cf. 2.25) ‘read.’
lithon (cf. 5.5) ‘stone’: Revised Standard Version ‘the very stone’ carries somewhat more emphasis than the Greek allows; ‘the stone,’ or, at the most, ‘that stone,’ is an accurate translation. The word lithon is in the accusative case, by attraction to the case of the relative pronoun hon ‘which,’ the object of the verb apedokimasan ‘they rejected,’ a construction common in Greek.
apedokimasan (cf. 8.31) ‘they rejected,’ ‘they considered worthless.’
hoi oikodomountes (cf. 12.1) ‘the builders.’
egenēthē eis kephalēn gōnias ‘was the cornerstone,’ ‘became the head of the corner’: egenēthē eis is the literal Septuagint translation of the Hebrew phrase hayah le and means simply ‘was,’ ‘became’ (cf. 10.8).
kephalē gōnias (only here in Mark) is either ‘the cornerstone’ which holds together the walls, or ‘the keystone,’ ‘the capstone’ which is placed above the door. Most translations have ‘cornerstone.’ Revised Standard Version (following American Standard Version) ‘the head of the corner,’ here and elsewhere in the N.T. where the passage is quoted (parallels Mt. 21.42, Lk. 20.17; Acts 4.11, 1 Pet. 2.7), is inconsistent with its translation of the O.T. passage (Ps. 118.22), which appears as ‘chief cornerstone.’ The cognate akrogōniaios, the Septuagint translation in Isa. 28.16, is found in Eph. 2.20 and 1 Pet. 2.6, the Revised Standard Version translation in all three passages being ‘cornerstone.’ If a distinction is to be maintained between kephalē gōnias and akrogōniaios in the N.T., ‘chief cornerstone’ should be used for the former and ‘cornerstone’ for the latter. ‘The head of the corner’ may be virtually meaningless.
para kuriou egeneto hautē ‘this came from the Lord,’ ‘this was the Lord’s doing.’
kuriou ‘of the Lord,’ i.e. ‘of Yahweh,’ ‘of God’ (cf. 1.3).
hautē ‘this’: the feminine gender is due to the Septuagint literal translation of the Hebrew feminine demonstrative zoʾth which is used for the neuter, and means, in this passage, ‘this thing,’ ‘this matter’ (Field gives other Septuagint passages where the same thing occurs). Gould, with little probability, refers hautē to kephalē gōnias ‘cornerstone’ (cf. Lagrange, Swete, Taylor).
thaumastē (only here in Mark) ‘marvelous,’ ‘wonderful.’
en ophthalmois hēmōn ‘in our sight,’ i.e. ‘in our judgment.’
Translation:
For the treatment of a question implying a positive answer, as for example, have you not read this scripture, see 11.17, but in this particular context the problem is somewhat more difficult because of the long direct discourse which follows and which cannot be combined in some languages with the question. Accordingly, one may need to employ certain close equivalents, e.g. ‘Have you read this scripture; I am sure you have’ (which implies the same as the negative form in English which anticipates a positive answer and as such is really a strong affirmative of the statement), or ‘You have read this scripture surely?,’ or ‘Have you not read this scripture – yes?’ (or ‘no,’ depending upon patterns of agreement). Whether the punctuation of the question should be placed at the end of the direct discourse will depend entirely upon the syntactic patterns of the receptor language and the traditional practices.
Scripture may be translated as ‘the writing’ (Yucateco), ‘the sacred writing,’ in which ‘sacred,’ as a kind of classifier, is required in order to indicate the religious nature of the writing (Ngäbere), and ‘this writing of God,’ without implying that God literally wrote out the document (Tzotzil, San Blas Kuna, Eastern Highland Otomi).
Builders may be translated in some languages as ‘house-makers’ (Barrow Eskimo).
Rejected may be objective in the sense of ‘cast aside,’ but the more accurate rendering is a subjective one ‘regarded as worthless’ or ‘thought was not of value’ (or ‘was useless’).
Head of the corner should not be translated literally, unless by some strange coincidence it is a meaningful expression. As noted above, the meaning is either corner stone or cap stone. As the first meaning one may have ‘ear of the house’ (Conob) or ‘the strongest stone in the corner’ (Tzotzil). In other instances, translators have chosen the meaning of cap stone or keystone, and translated this as ‘the top stone’ or ‘the high stone.’ However, an ambiguous expression, which at the same time conveys the significance of the passage, may emphasize the relative importance of the stone, e.g. ‘the most important stone’ (Huastec), ‘surpasses in importance to hold up the house’ (Yaka), ‘most valued stone,’ with the meaning of ‘most useful’ (Eastern Highland Otomi).
Many languages distinguish two words for ‘corner,’ an inside and an outside corner, e.g. Spanish. Here the outside corner is the one involved.
This was the Lord’s doing is a relatively difficult expression to translate literally into other languages, but it may be transformed into a direct construction, ‘the Lord has done this.’
For the use of Lord see 1.3. Despite the fact that this is a reference to Lord as God, it is important to preserve the ambiguity of the N.T. in using a word which is also the common designation of Jesus as Lord.
Marvelous in our eyes must usually be changed to a direct construction, e.g. ‘as we see it we are amazed’ (Navajo) or ‘we see it as a big thing’ (Eastern Highland Otomi). Eyes is only an indirect way of speaking about ‘seeing.’
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.