41He came a third time and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Enough! The hour has come; the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
Kim Ki-chang (pen name: Unbo) had been deaf and partially mute since the age of 7. He painted a series of 30 paintings for the “Life of Christ” cycle in 1952 during the Korean War. Kim portrayed Jesus as a seonbi / 선비, or a Joseon Period (1392-1910) gentleman scholar, wearing a gat / 갓 (hat) and dopo / 도포 (robe). For other images of Kim Ki-chang art works in TIPs, see here.
The Greek that is translated as “sinner” in English is translated as “people with bad hearts” (“it is not enough to call them ‘people who do bad things,’ for though actions do reflect the heart, yet it is the hearts with which God is primarily concerned — see Matt. 15:19”) in Western Kanjobal, “people who are doing wrong things in their hearts” in San Blas Kuna (source: Nida 1952, p. 148), “people with bad stomachs” in Q’anjob’al (source: Newberry and Kittie Cox in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 91ff. ), “those others who don’t fully obey our laws” in Tagbanwa (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation), or “people with dirty hearts” or “people who are called ‘bad'” in Mairasi (source: Enggavoter 2004).
In Central Mazahua and Teutila Cuicatec it is translated as “(person who) owes sin.” (Source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
The Greek that is translated as “Son of Man” and is mostly used by Jesus to refer to himself is (back-) translated in the following languages as (click or tap for details):
Tzotzil: “I who am equal with men” or “The Older Brother of Everybody” (“expressing the dignity and authority of the Messiah and the universality of his work”)
Tenango Otomi: “The Man Appointed” (i.e. the man to whom authority has been delegated) (source for this and preceding: Beekman, p. 189-190, see also Ralph Hill in Notes on Translation February 1983, p. 35-50)
Aguaruna: “One who was born becoming a person” (source for this and two above: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Older Sibling of Mankind” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Child of a Person” (source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “One From Heaven Born of Man/human?” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Man who came from heaven” (source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Yatzachi Zapotec: “One who God sent, who was born a human” (a direct translation would have suggested “that the father is unknown due to the indiscretions of the mother” and where “he is the son of people” is used when one wants to disclaim responsibility for or relationship with a child caught in some mischief — source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
Mezquital Otomi: “The son who became a person” (Source: B. Moore / G. Turner in Notes on Translation 1967, p. 1ff.)
Alekano: “The true man who descended from heaven” (source: Ellis Deibler in Notes on Translation June 1986, p. 36ff.)
Central Tarahumara: “One who has been stood up to help” (“This suggests that Christ has been given authority to some appointed task. A very generic word, help, was selected to fill in the lexically obligatory purpose required by the word which means to appoint or commission. Usually this word is used of menial tasks but not exclusively. The choice of this generic term retains the veiled reference to the character of Christ’s work which He intended in using the ‘Son of Man’ title.”)
Chicahuaxtla Triqui: “He who is relative of all people.” (“The Triqui word for relative is a rather generic term and in its extended sense sometimes is diluted to neighbor and friend. But the primary meaning is relative.”)
Tepeuxila Cuicatec: “The Person who Accompanies All People” (“The literal equivalents ‘son of man’ and ‘son of people’ were both rejected because of the false inference of natural birth involving a human father. Furthermore, it was necessary to expand any translation of the Bible by the addition of the pronoun ‘I’ so as to clarify the fact that Jesus is using the third person in referring to Himself. A common expression used by the Cuicatecos when difficulties befall someone, is to say to that one, ‘don’t worry, we are accompanying you.’ By this they mean they share that person’s sorrow. When wedding guests arrive at the home of a son who has just been married, they say to the father, ‘We have come to accompany you.’ By this they mean that they have come to share the father’s joy. These expressions do not refer to ordinary physical accompaniment, which is expressed by a set of different verbs. For example, visits are always announced by some such greeting as, “I have come to visit you,’ ‘I have come to see you,’ or ‘I have come to ask you something.’ The desire to accompany a friend on a journey is expressed by saying, ‘I will go with you.’ Translation helpers used the verb ‘accompany’ in constructing the phrase ‘I, the Person who Accompanies All People.'(…) It reflects the fact that Jesus closely identified Himself with all of us, understands our weaknesses, shares our burdens, rejoices with us in times of gladness, etc.”) (source for this and the three preceding: Beekman in Notes on Translation January 1963, p. 1-10)
Guhu-Samane: “Elder-brother-man” (“Since the term denotes an elder brother in every way such as honor, power, leadership, representation of the younger, etc. it is a meaningful and fitting — though not ostentatious — title.” Source: Ernest Richert in The Bible Translator 1965, p. 198ff. )
Navajo: Diné Silíi’ii — “Man he-became-the-one-who” (“This terra presented a difficulty not only in Navajo but also one peculiar to all the Athapaskan languages. It lies in the fact that all these languages, so far as we know, have a word phonetically similar to the Navajo diné which has three meanings: ‘man, people in general,’ ‘a man,’ ‘The People’ which is the name the Navajos use for themselves. (The name Navajo was first used by the Spanish explorers.) Although it seemed natural to say diné biye’ ‘a-man his-son,’ this could also mean ‘The-People their-son’ or ‘a-Navajo his-son,’ in contrast to the son of a white man or of another Indian tribe. Since the concept of the humanity of Christ is so important, we felt that diné biye’ with its three possible meanings should not be used. The term finally decided on was Diné Silíi’ii ‘Man he-became-the-one-who.’ This could be interpreted to mean ‘the one who became a Navajo,’ but since it still would impart the idea of Christ’s becoming man, it was deemed adequate, and it has proven acceptable to the Navajos.”) (Source: Faye Edgerton in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 25ff. )
Toraja-Sa’dan: “Child descended in the world” (“using a poetic verb, often found in songs that [deal with] the contacts between heaven and earth”) (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
Obolo: Gwun̄ Ebilene: “Child of Human” (source: Enene Enene).
Mairasi: Jaanoug Tat: “Person Child” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Costa Rican Sign Language: “It was impossible to translate the expression ‘Son of Man.’ The son-man sign simply means ‘male child.’ The Costa Rican Sign Language (LESCO) team opted for an interpretation of the term and translated it ‘Jesus.'” (Source: Elsa Tamez (in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 59ff.)
Lokạạ: wẹẹn wạ ọnẹn or “son of a person.” “This translation is symbolic in that it uses indigenous Lokạạ words. However, since the publication of the New Testament in 2006, this phrase has gained popularity within contemporary Lokạạ society as an expression to describe an important person whose career is going well. In the New Testament, the phrase ‘son of man’ is used to describe Jesus as prototypically human, but the Lokạạ phrase is now being used to describe an exceptional person in Lokạạ society.” (Source: J.A. Naudé, C.L. Miller Naudé, J.O. Obono in Acta Theologica 43/2, 2023, p. 129ff. )
In many West African languages, using a third person reference as a first person indicator is common practice with a large range of semantic effects. Languages that use the exact expression “son of man” as a self-reference or reference to another person include Lukpa, Baatonum, Mossi (“son of Adam”), Yoruba (“son of person”), Guiberoua Béte, or Samo. (Source: Lynell Zogbo in: Omanson 2000, p. 167-188.)
In Swahili the expression Mwana wa Mtu or mwana wa mtu or “son/daughter of human person,” which is used by several Bible translations, also has “the idiomatic meaning of ‘a human being’” (source: Jean-Claude Loba-Mkole in An Intercultural Criticism of New Testament Translations 2013, see here). The same is true for the Lingala expression Mwana na Moto — “son/daughter of human person.” (Ibid.)
In Balinese “we are again bordering on theological questions when we inquire as to which vocabulary shall be used to translate the texts where Jesus speaks of himself as ‘the Son of man.’ One of the fixed rules governing the use of these special vocabularies is that one may never use the deferential terms in speaking of oneself. This would be the extreme of arrogance. Now if one considers the expression ‘Son of man’ primarily as a description of ‘I,’ then one must continually indicate the possessions or actions of the Son of man by Low Balinese words. In doing this the mystery of the expression is largely lost. In any case the vocabulary used in most of the contexts would betray that Jesus means the title for himself.
“However, a distinction can actually be made in Balinese between the person and the exalted position he occupies. For example, the chairman of a judicial body may employ deferential terms when referring to this body and its chairman, without this being taken as an expression of arrogance. Considered from this standpoint, one may translate in such a way that Jesus is understood as using such deferential words and phrases in speaking of himself. The danger is, however, that the unity between his person and the figure of “the Son of man” is blurred by such usage.
“On request, the New Testament committee of the Netherlands Bible Society advised that ‘the sublimity of this mysterious term be considered the most important point and thus High Balinese be used.'”
In Malay, Barclay Newman reports on the translation of “Today’s Malay Version” (Alkitab Berita Baik) of 1987:
“One of the first things that we did in working through the earlier part of the New Testament was to decide on how we would translate some of the more difficult technical terms. It was immediately obvious that something must be done with the translation of ‘the Son of Man,’ since the literal rendering anak manusia (literally ‘child of a man’) held absolutely no meaning for Malay readers. We felt that the title should emphasize the divine origin and authority of the one who used this title, and at the same time, since it was a title, we decided that it should not be too long a phrase. Finally, a phrase meaning ‘the One whom God has ordained’ was chosen (yang dilantik Allah). It is interesting to note that the newly-begun Common Indonesian (Alkitab Kabar Baik, published in 1985) has followed a similar route by translating ‘the One whom God has chosen’ (yang depilih Allah).”
Following are a number of back-translations of Mark 14:41:
Uma: “He went again to pray the third time, and after that he returned again to his disciples, he said to them: ‘Are you still lying down and sleeping? Enough! The time has come for me the Child of Mankind to be sold and handed over to evil people.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “When Isa returned the third time, he said to them, ‘Are you still sleeping and resting. That is enough now. The time has come. I, the Son of Mankind, will soon be handed over into the hands/holding of sinful people.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “A little while later he returned again the third time, and he said to them, ‘Are you still sound asleep? That’s enough, for this is the time when I, the older sibling of mankind, will be handed over to wicked people.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “So he went again to pray. Returning then the third-time, he said to those disciples of his, ‘Why there you are still enjoying yourselves sleeping! That’s enough! Because the hour that God has designated has already arrived that I who am Child of a Person will be turned-over to sinful people.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “On Jesus’ third return, he said to them, ‘Are you still sleeping, just wanting to rest? Enough of that! The hour has come that I who am the One From Heaven Born of Man/human have been traded. I will now be handed over to people who are sinners.” (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.
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 his disciples, individuals and/or crowds with the formal pronoun, showing respect.
In most Dutch translations, Jesus addresses his disciples and common people with the informal pronoun, whereas they address him with the formal form.
to triton ‘the third time’: an adverbial phrase modifying the verb erchetai ‘he comes.’
katheudete to loipon kai anapauesthe – How this sentence is to be taken is subject to wide differences of opinion. Most Greek texts punctuate it as a statement, either as a command (‘you are to sleep … and rest’) or as a simple statement (‘you are sleeping … and resting’); Kilpatrick, however, punctuates it as a question. Though the verb forms may be read as imperative or indicative, with a semi-colon following, and in the context, the Greek would normally be read as an imperative – and presumably that is what the majority of editors of the Greek text assume it to be. The words have been translated in three ways: (1) as a statement, indicating surprise, ‘You are still sleeping and resting!’ (Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale); (2) as a command, intended either seriously or ironically, ‘Sleep on now and rest’ (Vulgate; King James Version, American Standard Version, The Modern Speech New Testament; Zürcher Bibel, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada; Gould, Swete, Lagrange); (3) as a question, ‘Are you still sleeping and resting?’ (Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, Goodspeed, Berkeley, Manson, Translator’s New Testament, Williams; Rawlinson, Taylor). The context would seem to favor the third alternative. However, if we interpret this as a question, it must be admitted that to loipon, in this case, assumes a meaning it does not ordinarily have, since, as an adverbial phrase indicating time, it means ‘henceforth,’ ‘from now on,’ ‘for the future.’ Arndt & Gingrich suggest various interpretations, including the interrogative sense, which they state thus, ‘Do you intend to sleep on and on?’ or, possibly, ‘You are sleeping in the meantime?’ On the whole it would seem that the words should be taken as a question.
anapauō (cf. 6.31) ‘to rest.’
apechei. On this single word, used nowhere else in the New Testament in an absolute sense, as here, Vincent says, with some justification: “Expositors are utterly at sea as to its meaning.” The meaning ‘it is enough,’ favored by most translations and commentators, goes as far back as the Vulgate, which has sufficit. By most this is taken to refer to the sleeping and resting of the disciples: ‘enough of that!’ ‘no more of that!’ Lagrange, however, translates C’en est fait with reference to Jesus himself and his thrice-repeated prayer concerning his approaching Passion: ‘sleep, I am now ready.’ Montgomery seems to assume some such meaning by translating, ‘it is over.’
The form apechei is normally used of receipting bills, with the meaning ‘paid in full’ (cf. Moulton & Milligan). Following this meaning, J. de Zwaan (quoted by Rawlinson) suggested that the verb here has a personal sense and is to be referred to Judas, as the subject: ‘He did receive (the promised money).’ Thus Manson translates ‘the money has been paid!’ and E. K. Simpson paraphrases, ‘It is settled! The deed of infamy is done! He pockets his reward.’
Another translation has been suggested by G. H. Boobyer. He proposes the meaning ‘take possession of,’ and refers the verb to Judas, as the subject: ‘He is taking possession of (me)!’ Translator’s New Testament translates ‘Is he far away?’
Emendation, the last resource of the translator, has also been proposed. Black, following the variant reading (found in the sixth century uncial manuscript D) apechei to telos kai hē hōra, suggests that there was a mistranslation of the underlying Aramaic which meant, ‘The end and the hour are pressing.’ It should be noted that the Peshitto version of the Syriac has ‘the end has come’ (reading to telos as the subject of the verb and apparently translating the Greek ēggiken ‘has come’ rather than apechei). Otherwise it has been proposed that the original Marcan phrase was to telos apechei meaning, ‘the end is holding off,’ to be taken as a question: ‘The end is far away?’ (cf. Taylor).
Although these proposed variant readings and their emendations offer a reasonable explanation of what is otherwise quite an obscure saying (cf. Taylor, who inclines to accept either one of the proposed emendations), so long as the accepted text can be made to bear some intelligible meaning it should be followed and translated. In the present case it would seem best to go along with the majority.
ēlthen hē hōra (cf. v. 35) ‘the hour has come,’ ‘the hour is here.’
idou (cf. 1.2) ‘see’: should not be omitted (as in Revised Standard Version) here, even though repeated in the next verse.
paradidotai (cf. 1.14; cf. 9.31) ‘is delivered’: the ordinary meaning of the verb should be observed here, as in the identical phrase in 9.31. It is to be doubted that ‘deliver’ is to be understood in 9.31 and ‘betray’ here (as done by Revised Standard Version).
ho huios tou anthrōpou (cf. 2.10) ‘the Son of man.’
eis tas cheiras tōn hamartōlōn ‘into the hands of sinful men,’ ‘into the power of sinners’: hoi hamartōloi here presumably has the moral and theological connotation of ‘sinners’ who transgress God’s will, rather than the specialized sense in which it is used in 2.15f.
For similar statements concerning the Son of man cf. 9.31; 10.33.
Translation:
For the translation of came as ‘went back’ see verse 37.
Said may be in some languages better rendered as ‘asked,’ because of the following question.
The form of the question ‘Are you still sleeping and resting?’ should not imply that Jesus was actually asking for information. This is a rhetorical question implying a certain amount of surprise and irony. Hence, if in the receptor language special forms of questions are used for this type of expression, one should make certain that the appropriate equivalent is employed.
The problems involved in the translating of it is enough depend largely upon the exegesis. However, even then one will find that the closest equivalent is likely to be relatively idiomatic, e.g. ‘it is over,’ ‘it has happened,’ and ‘that is all.’
The hour has come is translatable as ‘the time has come’ or ‘now is the time.’
For the use of the Son of man as a third person reference in a first person relationship, see 2.10.
In many languages is betrayed must be translated as an immediate future, rather than present, e.g. ‘is going to be betrayed’ or ‘is about to be betrayed.’
The hands of sinners cannot be translated literally in many languages, since ‘hands’ do not always stand for ‘power’ or ‘control.’ The closest equivalent in some instances is ‘into the power of evil men’ or ‘under the authority of sinful men.’
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.