bread, loaf

The Greek term that is translated in English as “bread” or “loaf” is translated in Samo, it is translated as “Sago,” which serves “like ‘bread’ for the Hebrews, as a generic for food in the Samo language. It is a near-perfect metonymy that has all the semantic elements necessary for effective communication.” (Source: Daniel Shaw in Scriptura 96/2007, p. 501ff.)

In Chol it is translated as waj, the equivalent of a tortilla. (Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight)

John Beekman (in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 180f. ) explains: “The word ‘bread’ in Scripture primarily occurs as either a specific term for bread (including the Lord’s Supper), or as a generic term for food. It is not surprising, however, the some aboriginal groups use something other than bread as the staff of life. The Chols, with their cultural focus in the cultivation of corn, use waj, a type of thin corn flake. Since a meal is not complete without this main item of food, the term has been extended to include any other foods which may be served along with waj. While bread is known to them, its use is limited to a few occasions during the year when it functions as a dessert. In translating this term in the Chol New Testament, consistent use has been made of the word waj whenever the function of bread as a basic food was in focus. John 6:35, “I am the bread of life,” was thus translated with this word. If the word for bread had been used, it was feared that the Chol would compare Christ to the desirable, but not absolutely necessary, dessert.”

Robert Bascom adds his thoughts to this in relation to other Mayan languages (in Omanson 2001, p. 260): “In many Mayan languages, ‘bread’ can be translated waj or kaxlan waj. The first term literally means anything made from corn meal, while the second term literally means ‘foreigner’s waj,’ and refers to the local wheat-based sweet breads which are so popular within the broader European-influenced culture of the region. On the one hand, waj would be a better dynamic equivalent in cases where ‘bread’ meant ‘food,’ but in cases where the focus is literal or the reference well-known, kaxlan waj would preserve a flour-based meaning (though in biblical times barley was more in use than wheat) and not insert corn into a time and place where it does not belong. On the other hand kaxlan waj is not the staff of life, but refers to a local delicacy. In cases such as these, it is even tempting to suggest borrowing pan, the Spanish word for ‘bread,’ but native speakers might respond that borrowing a foreign word is not necessary since both waj and kaxlan waj are native terms that cover the meaning (though in this case, perhaps not all that well).”

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Matt. 16:7 / Mark 8:16)

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 disciples talking with each other).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

complete verse (Mark 8:16)

Following are a number of back-translations of Mark 8:16:

  • Uma: “But they did not know the meaning of that riddle, so they began talking among themselves, they said: ‘The reason he said that is that we don’t have any bread.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “His disciples spoke-among-themselves about what he had said because they did not understand it. They said, ‘Perhaps that’s why he speaks like that, because we (incl.) didn’t take bread along.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “They didn’t understand that it wasn’t really for bread he was talking about. So they were talking together, they said, ‘The reason he says this is because we did not bring our supply of bread.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “When he told them that, they talked-together saying, ‘Jesus said that because we have no bread for our pack-lunch.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “When those disciples heard, they said-among-themselves, ‘He spoke like that because we don’t have any bread with us.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Usila Chinantec: “They asked each other why he had said this, and finally decided that it was because they had no bread.”
  • Michoacán Nahuatl: “Then they began to say to each other, He said this because we didn’t bring bread. They spoke thus because they did not know that Jesus was talking about the teaching of the Pharisees and of Herod.”
  • Tzotzil: “There they began to say among themselves, In all probability it is because he knows that we have not brought bread. The disciples said this among themselves because they did not realize what the yeast was that Jesus talked about, that it is like the teachings of the Pharisees and of Herod.” (Source for this and two above: B. Moore / G. Turner in Notes on Translation 1967, p. 1ff.)

Translation commentary on Mark 8:16

Text:

Instead of echousin ‘they have’ of the majority of modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus, Tischendorf, Souter, Kilpatrick and Revised Standard Version have echomen ‘we have.’

Exegesis:

dielogizonto (cf. 2.6) ‘they were pondering,’ ‘they were discussing.’

hoti ‘that’: if echousin ‘they have’ is read (see Text, above), hoti introduces indirect discourse and may be translated (1) ‘that,’ as is the usual case with indirect discourse; (2) ‘(it is) because’ is preferred by Gould; Translator’s New Testament takes hoti as the equivalent of ti ‘why.’

echomen ‘we have’ is adopted by American Standard Version, Moffatt, Revised Standard Version: in this case hoti is not translated, since it introduces direct discourse.

Translation:

It may here need to be identified as ‘what he said.’

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 .