56And wherever he went, into villages or cities or farms, they laid the sick in the marketplaces and begged him that they might touch even the fringe of his cloak, and all who touched it were healed.
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “fringe” or “tzitzit” in many English translations is translated in Uma as “the decorations [lit.: “fruit”] of clothes” (source: Uma Back Translation), in Tenango Otomi as “clothing that reaches the ground” (source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation) and in Mairasi as “wings of the garments” (source: Enggavoter 2004).
In Bura-Pabir a term is used that is traditionally used for the tassels worn on clothes by hunters. (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
In Paasaal it is translated as “cloth mouth.” (Source: Fabian N. Dapila in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 415ff.)
Click or tap here to see a short video clip about tzitzvits (source: Bible Lands 2012)
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “village” or “town” in English is translated in Noongar as karlamaya or “fire (used for “home“) + houses” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
Following are a number of back-translations of Mark 6:56:
Uma: “Wherever Yesus went in the big villages or small villages, they brought their sick friends and laid them at the edge of the main-road, and they requested of Yesus that he allow them to touch at least the edge of his clothes. Everyone who touched his clothes were right away healed.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Wherever he arrived, in the villages or in the towns or in the places inland, they laid the sick people in the market-places and they begged Isa if it were possible for the sick ones even to touch the edge of his clothes. Na, all who touched him were healed.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Wherever they went, whether in the towns or in the homesteads, he would always find sick people who were brought to him. They placed the sick people in the selling place, and they begged Jesus that those sick people might be allowed to take hold of just the hem of his shirt, and anyone who took a hold of the shirt of Jesus was healed.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “And wherever Jesus went, large towns or barrios or small residential-areas, they were waiting-for him -with the sick ones in the marketplace where he was going. And they entreated that the sick should touch even just the hem of his clothes. And all who touched, they got-well.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Really wherever Jesus went to, in the barios, towns or houses in the surrounding area, what those sick people were lying on were being placed in the places where-there-were-many-people where he would pass. And they begged that they just be allowed to touch what was attached to the hem of Jesus’ cloak. Really all who touched got better, for their illnesses stopped.” (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.
Most of the words of this verse have already been dealt with: eisporeuomai ‘enter’ (1.21); kōmē, polis, agros ‘village, city, country-town’ (5.14; 6.6); parakaleō ‘request’ (1.40); hina of content ‘that’ (5.10, 18); kan ‘if only,’ ‘at least’ (5.28); himation ‘cloak,’ ‘garment’ (2.21); haptomai ‘touch’ (1.41); sōzō ‘heal,’ ‘cure’ (5.23).
en tais agorais (7.4; 12.38) ‘in the market places’ (perhaps ‘in the town squares,’ ‘in the village centers’): not every town and hamlet had its own market place.
tous asthenountas (only here in Mark; cf. the adjective asthenēs 14.38) ‘those who were feeble,’ i.e. the sick.
kan tou kraspedou tou himatiou autou hapsōntai ‘they might touch at least the fringe of his garment.’
kraspedon (only here in Mark) ‘edge,’ ‘border,’ ‘hem’; probably here not in the general sense, but in the specific sense of ‘tassel’ (in Hebrew tsitsith) worn by pious Jews on each of the four corners of the cloak (cf. Mt. 23.5).
Lagrange calls attention to the distinction between the aorist hēpsanto ‘they touched’ and the imperfect esōzonto ‘they were made well’ in the last clause: ‘And as many as touched it (momentary act) they were being made well (one after the other).’
Translation:
Came is probably better rendered as ‘went’ in most languages, for the point of view of the narrator is that of a companion of Jesus, not of those to whom he was coming.
Villages, cities, or country is paralleled by ‘small villages, large towns, and hamlets in the country.’ In Latin America market places are equivalent to ‘plazas,’ the central, open squares of the towns, often used for markets, at least on certain days.
There is a confusion in subject reference in the verb besought. Is the meaning here (1) that those who laid the sick in the market places requested Jesus to allow the sick to touch the hem of his garment (probably more accurately the tassel, though this would be difficult to translate in many languages), or (2) that the sick pleaded with Jesus to be able to touch his garment? It may very well be that both would be true, not only would the “sponsors” of the sick try to get Jesus to pay attention to their friends or relatives, but the sick would themselves ask for help. In many languages, however, one cannot preserve such an ambiguity, and hence one must choose between those who brought the sick and the sick themselves, in which case it is probably more in keeping with the context to employ the latter alternative.
Were made well may be translated as ‘got well,’ ‘became well,’ or ‘were healed.’
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.