The Hebrew and the Greek that are translated in English versions as “prophesy” are translated into Anuak as “sing a song” (source: Loren Bliese), into Balanta-Kentohe as “passing on message of God” (source: Rob Koops), and into Ixcatlán Mazatec with a term that does not only refer to the future, but is “speak on behalf of God” (source: Robert Bascom).
Other translations include: “God making someone to show something in advance” (Ojitlán Chinantec), “God causing someone to think and then say it” (Aguaruna), “speaking God’s thoughts” (Shipibo-Conibo), “God made someone say something” “Xicotepec De Juárez Totonac) (source for this and above: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125), “proclaim God’s message” (Teutila Cuicatec), “speak for God” (Chichimeca-Jonaz), “preach the Word of God” (Lalana Chinantec), “speak God’s words” (Tepeuxila Cuicatec), “that which God’s Spirit will cause one to say one will say” (Mayo) (source for this and four above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.), and “say what God wants people to hear” (tell people God wod dat e gii oona fa say) (Gullah) (source: Robert Bascom).
In Luang it is translated with different shades of meaning:
For Acts 3:18, 3:21, 3:25: nurwowohora — “mouth says words that don’t come from one’s own mind.” (“This term refers to an individual’s speaking words that are not his because either a good or bad spirit is at work through him. The speaker is not in control of himself.”)
For Acts 19:6, Acts 21:9: nakotnohora — “talk about.” (“The focus of this term is on telling God’s message for the present as opposed to the future.”)
For Acts 21:11: rora — “foretell” (“The focus of this term is giving God’s message concerning the future. The person who speaks is aware of what he is doing and he is using his own mind, yet it is with God’s power that he foretells the future.”)
Source: Kathy Taber in Notes on Translation 1/1999, p. 9-16.
The Greek that is translated as “blindfold” in English cannot be translated in some languages without specifying the object that the blindfolding is done with. In Quetzaltepec Mixe it says “blindfold him with a cloth.”
The Greek that is translated in English as “spit” is translated in Chipaya as “eject saliva” (source: Ronald D. Olson in Notes on Translation January, 1968, p. 15ff.).
In Noongar it is narridja-kwarda or “spittle-throw” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
Following are a number of back-translations of Mark 14:65:
Uma: “From there, there were some who spit on him, there were others who mocked him: they veiled his face, they beat him, and they said to him: ‘Ee prophet! Try and say who beat you (sing.)!’ The guards also, they were slapping [him] too.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “So-then some of the people began to spit on him. They also blindfolded his face and they hit him (with fists). They said to him, ‘Na, guess, who was it that hit you.’ And he was also slapped-in-the-face by the guards when they fetched him.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And some of them spit on Jesus. They covered up his eyes and struck him, saying, ‘Prophesy as to who struck you!’ And the soldiers grabbed him and slapped him.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “After-that some of them began to repeatedly-spit on his face. They also blindfolded his eyes and repeatedly-boxed him saying, ‘All-right now, guess who boxed you (sing.).’ The guards for-their-part, they repeatedly-slapped-him -in-the-face.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Without anything further, what some did was they kept spitting at Jesus. They covered his face and then kept punching him, together with saying, ‘Prophesy/guess who this is!’ And then the guards kept hitting 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 elabon ‘they received’ of all modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus has eballon ‘they struck.’
Exegesis:
emptuein (cf. 10.34) ‘to spit upon.’
perikaluptein (only here in Mark) ‘to cover,’ ‘to cover over.’
kolaphizein (only here in Mark) ‘to strike,’ ‘to beat’: this verb is used of beating with the closed fist, or the back of the hand (cf. Lagrange).
prophēteuson (cf. 7.6) ‘prophesy!,’ ‘guest!’ ‘reveal it!’: the meaning, of course (as the parallels Mt. 26.68, Luke 22.64 make explicit), is ‘reveal who it is that struck you!’
hoi hupēretai (cf. v. 54) ‘the servants,’ ‘the guards.’
rapismasin autōn elabon ‘treated him to blows’: this is a Latin colloquialism, verberibus eum acceperunt, describing the way in which the guards dealt with Jesus.
rapisma (only here in Mark) ‘blow’: although it may mean a blow with a club or whip , here it would almost certainly mean a blow with the open hand, a slap.
Translation:
Cover his face could have been either with a cloth or with their hands; the text does not specify.
Prophesy must in this text be understood in a very specific sense, e.g. ‘tell who hit you’ (Tzeltal) or ‘say who did it’ (Amganad Ifugao). The technical meaning of prophesy must generally be avoided in this context or the real meaning of the passage is likely to be lost.
Only rarely can the phrase received him with blows be translated literally. The meaning is ‘beat him up,’ a common enough practice among bullies, whether in or out of military uniform.
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.