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, the Jarai and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the exclusive pronoun, excluding the Lord.
Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed. The first example is from a language where God is always addressed distinctly formal whereas the second is one where the opposite choice was made.
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.
As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator 2002, p. 210ff.), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.
In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.
Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”
In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.
Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking (source Philip Noss).
In Dutch and Western Frisian translations, however, God is always addressed with the formal pronoun.
The name that is transliterated as “Moses” in English is signed in Spanish Sign Language and Polish Sign Language in accordance with the depiction of Moses in the famous statue by Michelangelo (see here ). (Source: John Elwode in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 78ff.)
American Sign Language also uses the sign depicting the horns but also has a number of alternative signs (see here).
In French Sign Language, a similar sign is used, but it is interpreted as “radiance” (see below) and it culminates in a sign for “10,” signifying the 10 commandments:
The horns that are visible in Michelangelo’s statue are based on a passage in the Latin Vulgate translation (and many Catholic Bible translations that were translated through the 1950ies with that version as the source text). Jerome, the translator, had worked from a Hebrew text without the niqquds, the diacritical marks that signify the vowels in Hebrew and had interpreted the term קרו (k-r-n) in Exodus 34:29 as קֶ֫רֶן — keren “horned,” rather than קָרַו — karan “radiance” (describing the radiance of Moses’ head as he descends from Mount Sinai).
Even at the time of his translation, Jerome likely was not the only one making that decision as this recent article alludes to.
In Swiss-German Sign Language it is translated with a sign depicting holding a staff. This refers to a number of times where Moses’s staff is used in the context of miracles, including the parting of the sea (see Exodus 14:16), striking of the rock for water (see Exodus 17:5 and following), or the battle with Amalek (see Exodus 17:9 and following).
We have acted very corruptly against thee: This clause in Hebrew is literally “To act corruptly, we have acted corruptly toward you.” This is an emphatic construction that focuses on the verb. Revised Standard Version therefore inserts the adverb very (also Darby), while Nouvelle version Segond révisée says “We have really acted badly toward you.” Chouraqui translates it “We have bonded together, bonded against you.”
Have not kept the commandments, the statutes, and ordinances: The sins that Nehemiah is confessing are specified as failing to keep the commandments, the statutes, and the ordinances (see also Neh 9.13; Ezra 7.10-11; 9.10). The three Hebrew words are the plural forms of mitswah, choq, and mishpat. These are the traditional terms to summarize all the Law of Moses as found in the torah or the Pentateuch (see Deut 5.31; 6.1). Because of the similar meaning and the uses of these words in other contexts, translators do not all agree on equivalents. In fact, the three words are used interchangeably. King James Version translates “the commandments, nor the statutes, the judgments,” New International Version uses “the commands, decrees and laws,” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “the commandments, the laws, and the rules,” while New Jerusalem Bible calls them “the commandments, laws and rulings.” Good News Translation summarizes the three terms together in the one word “laws,” but it is preferable to retain separate terms as Revised Standard Version has done. Translators should not try to find subtle differences between the separate Hebrew words. Nevertheless, the use of three near synonyms produces emphasis that may be lost by less repetition of keywords. In some languages it may not be possible to find several terms for laws and commands, in which case this type of repetition will not be possible to achieve in the translation.
Which thou didst command thy servant Moses: Nehemiah referred to himself in verse 6 above as God’s “servant,” and he referred to the Israelites as God’s “servants.” Here he refers to Moses as thy servant Moses. The title servant is used more often for Moses than for anyone else in the Bible (see Exo 14.31; Deut 34.5; Josh 1.1). The reference to Moses here is a reminder of the covenant relationship between God and the people of Israel that was referred to in verse 5 above. The repetition of the servant theme draws attention to the covenant relationship that has existed from the time of Moses to the time of Nehemiah and the Jews of his time. Good News Translation renders the archaic language of the clause which thou didst command thy servant Moses in contemporary English form.
Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Nehemiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.