The Greek that is translated with “moved with compassion (or: pity)” in English is translated as “to see someone with sorrow” in Piro, “to suffer with someone” in Huastec, or “one’s mind to be as it were out of one” in Balinese (source: Bratcher / Nida).
The term “compassion” is translated as “cries in the soul” in Shilluk (source: Nida, 1952, p. 132), “has a good stomach” (=”sympathetic”) in Aari (source: Loren Bliese), “has a big liver” in Una (source: Kroneman 2004, p. 471), or “crying in one’s stomach” in Q’anjob’al (source: Newberry and Kittie Cox in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 91ff. ). In Mairasi it is translated with an emphasized term that is used for “love”: “desiring one’s face so much” (source: Enggavoter 2004) and in Chitonga with kumyongwa or “to have the intestines twisting in compassion/sorrow for someone” (source: Wendland 1987, p. 128f.).
See also Seat of the Mind for traditional views of “ways of knowing, thinking, and feeling.”
The Greek that is translated in English as “they were like sheep without a shepherd” or similar is translated in Tlahuitoltepec Mixe as “they were standing about sadly like many sheep whose watcher had gone.” (Source: B. Moore / G. Turner in Notes on Translation 1967, p. 1ff.)
“Sheep are known throughout most of the world, even though, as in Central Africa, they are a far cry from the fleecy wool-producing animals of colder climates. Where such animals are known, even by seemingly strange names, e.g. ‘cotton deer’ (Yucateco) or ‘woolly goat’ (Inupiaq), such names should be used. In some instances, one may wish to borrow a name and use a classifier, e.g. ‘an animal called sheep’. In still other instances translators have used ‘animal which produces wool’, for though people are not acquainted with the animals they are familiar with wool.” (Source: Bratcher / Nida)
In Dëne Súline, it is usually translated as “an evil little caribou.” To avoid the negative connotation, a loan word from the neighboring South Slavey was used. (Source: NCAM, p. 70)
Note that the often-alleged Inuktitut translation of “sheep” with “seal” is an urban myth (source Nida 1947, p. 136).
The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “shepherd” in English is translated in Kouya as Bhlabhlɛɛ ‘yliyɔzʋnyɔ — ” tender of sheep.”
Philip Saunders (p. 231) explains:
“Then one day they tackled the thorny problem of ‘shepherd’. It was problematic because Kouyas don’t have herdsmen who stay with the sheep all the time. Sheep wander freely round the village and its outskirts, and often a young lad will be detailed to drive sheep to another feeding spot. So the usual Kouya expression meant a ‘driver of sheep’, which would miss the idea of a ‘nurturing’ shepherd. ‘A sheep nurturer’ was possible to say, but it was unnatural in most contexts. The group came up with Bhlabhlɛɛ ‘yliyɔzʋnyɔ which meant ‘a tender of sheep’, that is one who keeps an eye on the sheep to make sure they are all right. All, including the translators, agreed that this was a most satisfactory solution.”
In Chuj, the translation is “carer” since there was no single word for “shepherd” (source: Ronald Ross), in Muna, it is dhagano dhumba: “sheep guard” since there was no immediate lexical equivalent (source: René van den Berg), in Mairasi it is translated with “people who took care of domesticated animals” (source: Enggavoter 2004), in Noongar as kookendjeriyang-yakina or “sheep worker” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang), and Kwakum as “those-who-monitor-the-livestock” (source: Stacey Hare in this post ).
Following are a number of back-translations of Matthew 9:36:
Uma: “He was overcome with emotion [lit., his heart was far-away] seeing the many people, because their troubles were many, and there was no-one to help them, [they were] like sheep who are not shepherded.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “When he saw the crowds of people, he had great pity on them because they were troubled and nobody helped them. They were like sheep who don’t have anyone to look after them.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And when he saw the many people, he pitied them because they had many cares and there was no one to help them. They were like sheep with no one to care for them.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Upon his seeing the many people, he pitied them, because they were hardshipped and discouraged like sheep who have no one-to-take-care-of them.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “When Jesus observed all the people, he really pitied them. For they were like sheep who were starving and defeated by the hardships they were experiencing because there was no shepherd.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “When he saw that very many people gathered to where he arrived, very much did he pity them. Because the people lived in misery, not knowing what to do. They were like sheep without anyone to shepherd them.” (Source: Tenango Otomi 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.
Had compassion translates a Greek verb which is used quite frequently in the Gospels. In Matthew it is found in 14.14; 15.32; 18.27; 20.34. The root meaning is “to be stirred up with feeling.” New Jerusalem Bible renders “he felt sorry,” and New English Bible “the sight of the people moved him to pity.” New American Bible is similar to Good News Translation, “his heart was moved with pity.” Other suggestions are “he was filled with compassion for them” or “pity for them filled him.” Many languages will have an idiom that describes this feeling of pity and love.
Harassed translates a participle derived from a verb stem which originally meant “flayed” or “skinned.” In the New Testament, however, it always has a figurative meaning: “troubled,” “harassed,” “worried,” or “bewildered,” or possibly “confused” or “upset.”
Helpless also translates a Greek participle. It derives from a verb which originally means “throw away (or, down),” but Matthew quite obviously uses it in a figurative sense. New English Bible translates as Good News Translation does; several others have “dejected” (An American Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, Barclay), while Phillips translates “miserable.” The two participles are represented in New American Bible as “They were lying prostrate from exhaustion,” which seems to squeeze too much from the etymology of the verb, for it is hardly conceivable that the people were actually lying on the ground, physically exhausted! In addition to a literal translation of helpless, other possible words are “defeated” or “vulnerable.”
The closest parallel to the expression like sheep without a shepherd is Numbers 27.17. But see also 1 Kings 22.17; 2 Chronicles 18.16; Isaiah 53.6; Ezekiel 34.5. This verse indicates that the call for laborers to go to the harvest (verses 37-38) is based upon the compassion of Jesus.
The simile like sheep without a shepherd can pose something of a problem in areas where sheep are not well known. It may be necessary to say “like animals that need to be watched, but have no one to take care of them.” However, since sheep occur so often in the Bible, most translators have tried to retain “sheep” where possible, perhaps calling them “domestic animals called sheep.” If possible, however, the sentence should not be too long or awkward.
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.