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).”
The Greek that is a transliteration of the Hebrew Pərūšīm and is typically transliterated into English as “Pharisee” is transliterated in Mandarin Chinese as Fǎlìsài (法利賽 / 法利赛) (Protestant) or Fǎlìsāi (法利塞) (Catholic). In Chinese, transliterations can typically be done with a great number of different and identical-sounding characters. Often the meaning of the characters are not relevant, unless they are chosen carefully as in these cases. The Protestant Fǎlìsài can mean something like “Competition for the profit of the law” and the Catholic Fǎlìsāi “Stuffed by/with the profit of the law.” (Source: Zetzsche 1996, p. 51)
In Finnish Sign Language it is translated with the sign signifying “prayer shawl”. (Source: Tarja Sandholm)
Scot McKnight (in The Second Testament, publ. 2023) translates it into English as Observant. He explains (p. 302): “Pharisee has become a public, universal pejorative term for a hypocrite. Pharisees were observant of the interpretation of the Covenant Code called the ‘tradition of the elders.’ They conformed their behaviors to the interpretation. Among the various groups of Jews at the time of Jesus, they were perhaps closest to Jesus in their overall concern to make a radical commitment to the will of God (as they understood it).”
Following are a number of back-translations of Matthew 16:11:
Uma: “Why do you still not understand that it is not real bread that I am talking about! Watch out for the yeast of the Parisi and Saduki people.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “I wonder why you do not understand that what I said there was not about bread. Stay away from the yeast/for-rising of the Pariseo and Sadduseo.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Why is it that you didn’t understand that it is not bread that I was talking about? Be on your guard so that you might avoid the yeast of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “So why do you still not understand that it was not bread that I was speaking-about to you a little-while-ago? What I said was to beware of the yeast/baking powder of the Pharisees and Saducees!'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Why can’t you understand that it wasn’t about bread that I said to you to be careful of the raising-agent of the Pariseo and Saduceo?'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “How come you do not understand that it isn’t bread I am talking about when I tell you to be careful of the leaven which is given by the Pharisees and also the Saducees?'” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Both the question form and the negative relative clause (that I did not …) within another negative relative clause (that you fail …) may cause some difficulty for some readers. But these potential problems can be resolved; for example, “By now you should have realized that I was not talking to you about bread.” In some West African languages the most natural way to render this will be “I wasn’t talking about bread. Can’t you see that?”
Beware of translates the same verb used in verse 6; it was first used in 6.1 (see comments there).
In translation it may be beneficial for the reader if a clear tie is made between the two statements of this verse; for example, “Don’t you understand that when I told you to watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees I wasn’t talking about bread?” or “I told you to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. I wasn’t talking about bread. Can’t you understand that?”
The leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees may wrongly be interpreted to mean either “the yeast which the Pharisees and Sadducees own” or “… which the Pharisees and Sadducees are selling (or, distributing).” However, the difficulty is not too severe, since an explanation is given in the next verse. Nevertheless, it is possible to be more specific, even here: “… from the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which is like yeast (that spreads throughout a lump of dough).”
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1988. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.