15Should we pay them, or should we not?” But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.”
The term that is translated as “hypocrisy” in English versions is translated with a term in Oxchuc Tzeltal that means “two hearts,” in Central Pame “two mouths” (source: Nida 1952, p. 150), and in San Miguel El Grande Mixtec “having two heads” (source: Nida 1947, p. 150).
Kituba uses a specialized idiom for “hypocrisy”: “eye under leaf” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel) and in the Mandarin ChineseUnion Version the four-character phrase jiǎmào wéi shàn (假冒为善 / 假冒為善), lit. “impersonate for good” is used (source: Zetzsche).
The term that is translated as “test” or “trap” in English is rendered in Santa Cruz (Natügu) with the phrase “catch him in a net.” (Source: David Clark)
In Noongar it is translated with a derivative of “fish trap” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
The Greek that is typically translated as “tempt” or “temptation” in English is translated in Noongar as djona-karra or “reveal conduct” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang) and in Tibetan as nyams sad (ཉམས་སད།), lit. “soul + test,” or in some cases as slu (སླུ།) or “lure / lead astray” (for instance in 1 Cor. 7:5 or Gal 6:1) (source: gSungrab website )
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 Jesus).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
The Yagua translators chose the exclusive form, and justify this by saying “would the Jews include Jesus in this ‘we,’ or put Him in the position of arbiter or outside judge and exclude Him? We judge from the Jews’ preamble and from the manner of Jesus’ answer that the choice should be exclusive.”
Source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 165ff.
Following are a number of back-translations of Mark 12:15:
Uma: “Yesus knew the hidden purpose of their heart. That’s why he said to them: ‘Why do you search for a slip-up in my words? Bring here the money you usually use to pay the tax, I want to see it.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “But Isa knew their deceit. He said to them, ‘Why are you testing me? Bring a coin (lit. hard money) here so that I can look at it.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And Jesus knew that they were intending to trap him and so he said, ‘Why are you testing me? Show me what the money looks like with which you pay the tax to the king of Rome.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “But Jesus knew they were tricking him, so then he said to them, ‘Why are you testing me? Please bring-me a money so I will look-at-it.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “But Jesus knew the motive in their mind. That’s why he said to them, ‘Why are you putting a noose around my neck(fig.)? Bring me that money to look at.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
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, Jesus is addressing religious leaders with the formal pronoun, showing respect. Compare that with the typical address with the informal pronoun of the religious leaders.
The only two exceptions to this are Luke 7:40/43 and 10:26 where Jesus uses the informal pronoun as a response to the sycophantic use of the formal pronoun by the religious leaders (see formal pronoun: religious leaders addressing Jesus).
In most Dutch translations, the same distinctions are made, with the exception of Luke 10:26 where Jesus is using the formal pronoun. In Afrikaans and Western Frisian the informal pronoun is used throughout.
dōmen ē mē dōmen; ‘are we to pay, or not?’: an example of what is called the deliberative subjunctive.
ho de eidōs autōn tēn hupokrisin ‘but he, perceiving their hypocrisy’: cf. Goodspeed (and Lagrange) ‘but he saw through their pretense.’
hupokrisis (only here in Mark; cf. hupokrites 7.6) ‘dissimulation,’ ‘outward show,’ ‘hypocrisy.’
ti me peirazete; ‘why do you put me to the test?’: cf. the similar use of the verb in 8.11; 10.2.
pherete moi dēnarion hina idō ‘bring me a denarius that I may look (at it)’: the hina clause expresses purpose; Rawlinson and Revised Standard Version, however, understand it as being imperatival ‘let me look at it.’
dēnarion (cf. 6.37) ‘denarius’: a silver coin, minted by the Roman government.
Translation:
Should implies the concept of obligation, which is equivalent in some languages to ‘must we pay.’ This is a question of obligation, not of mere future possibility.
Knowing may be rendered either as ‘being acquainted with’ or ‘recognizing’; either meaning would fit this context.
For hypocrisy see 7.6. In this particular context the San Mateo del Mar Huave language employs an interesting idiom ‘he could see that they were talking just with their mouth,’ that is to say, ‘not with the heart,’ which would have implied sincerity.
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.