Following are a number of back-translations of Romans 1:3:
Uma: “That Good News tells who the Child of God is, our Lord Yesus Kristus. According to his birth as mankind, Yesus is the descendant of King Daud of old. But that Yesus is also the Child of God, for he is holy the same as God. That is clear because God caused him to live again, and with that amazing sign he made-clear that he indeed is the Child of God.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “This good news is about God’s Child/Son, Isa Almasi, our (incl.) Leader. He was born in the world a descendant of King Da’ud when he was a human being.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “This is the news about our Lord Jesus Christ, son of God. And as for this Jesus, he became a human for he was born as a descendant of the long ago King David.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “What this good news talks-about, it is his Child Jesu Cristo who is our Lord. As concerning his personhood, he was a descendant of King David.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “This good news tells about our Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God. It tells that he became a person, and tells that he is the descendant of the ruler David.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Isthmus Zapotec: “This gospel teaches us of His son who came from among the children (family) of David at the time when he came to be a person of this world, and He is Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Central Tarahumara: “And this very Good Word of God speaks advising us about the Son of God, who is our Lord Jesus Christ. And here in the world Jesus Christ was born as a baby boy. And he was born as one of David’s grandsons like.” (Source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
Hausa: “This gospel is about his Son Jesus Christ our Lord it is. By human he is from the tribe of David,” (Source: Hausa Common Language Back Translation)
The name that is transliterated as “David” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with the sign signifying king and a sling (referring to 1 Samuel 17:49 and 2 Samuel 5:4). (Source: John Elwode in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 78ff.)
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.
In the statement it is about his Son, it refers back to the Good News, not to the Holy Scriptures as a whole (see Jerusalem Bible “this news is about the Son of God”).
In a number of languages is about must be rendered as “tells about,” “speaks about,” or even “describes.”
The phrase our Lord Jesus Christ is introduced from verse 4 in order to show its connection with his Son and with the description that follows. Although neither the Jerusalem Bible nor the New English Bible shifts this phrase from the following verse, they each make the relation explicit by the statement “it is about Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Special care must be exercised in the use of so-called possessive relations with words such as Lord and God. In some languages, for example, one cannot say our Lord. One cannot, as it were, possess someone who rules over him. The closest equivalent in such languages may be “the one who lords (over) us” or “the one who rules us.” Similarly, “our God” must be rendered in some languages as “the God whom we worship.”
It is helpful to take the last half of verse 3 and all of verse 4 together, since the exegetical and translational problems are closely interrelated. As to his humanity (literally “according to the flesh”) is taken by most commentators and translators in the same sense as by the Good News Translation (New English Bible “on the human level”; Jerusalem Bible “according to the human nature”). As a man Jesus was born (literally “became”; Galatians 4.4 uses this verb in the same way, literally “he became of a woman”). Our Lord is further qualified as a descendant of David (literally “from the seed of David”; New English Bible “he was born of David’s stock”; Jerusalem Bible “was a descendant of David”; An American Translation* combines this and the previous statement “who was physically descended from David”).
The phrase as to his humanity is variously rendered in different receptor languages. The two principal equivalent expressions are “as a man” or “as far as his body was concerned.” In some instances this is combined directly with the following phrase: “he had the same kind of body as the offspring of David.” References to the lineage of David may be expressed as “he was a grandson of David” (in languages in which the term “grandson” is a generic term for any male descendant). On the other hand, David may be made the subject of such a phrase—for example, “David was his grandfather” or “David was his ancestor.” Again, one may simply specify lineage: “he belonged to David’s family.” It is frequently, however, very difficult to translate literally he was born a descendant; such a passive phrase could be quite misleading.
As to his divine holiness (literally “according to [the] spirit of holiness”) may be understood in either of two ways. (1) It may be understood along with the Good News Translation as a reference to our Lord’s own (divine) nature; that is, his “holiness” was the quality that most closely identified him with God (An American Translation* “in his holiness of spirit”; Knox “in respect of the sanctified spirit that was his”; Jerusalem Bible “the spirit of holiness that was in him”). Or (2) it may be understood as a reference to the Holy Spirit (New English Bible “on the level of the spirit—the Holy Spirit”; Revised Standard Version “according to the Spirit of holiness”; see also Moffatt). Some few interpreters take the phrase “spirit of holiness” as a reference to the Lord’s own spirit which enabled him to “set apart” people for God. That is, the phrase is taken by them as a reference to the saving power or function of the Son of God, and not as a reference to his nature; however, no translation seems to go in that direction.
In support of the exegesis represented in the Good News Translation there are at least two observations. (1) This phrase stands in formal contrast with as to his humanity, which definitely refers to one aspect of Jesus’ person. (2) Paul nowhere else uses this phrase to refer to the Holy Spirit, and though some scholars maintain that Paul took it over as a set formula from Palestinian Christians, there is no clear evidence in the New Testament or in other early Christian literature that it was used of the Holy Spirit.
Though the phrase as to his divine holiness seems to be a particularly appropriate expression in English, it is extremely difficult to render such an expression in some other languages. An abstract such as “holiness” would rarely, if ever, have as an attributive an adjective such as “divine.” Moreover, in many languages there is simply no attributive term such as “divine”; the closest equivalent would be “from God.” Therefore, in some languages the closest equivalent of as to his divine holiness would be “as far as his being from God and his being holy is concerned.” Some translators have followed a type of compromise rendering; “as far as his spirit, which was holy, is concerned.”
The verb shown literally means “to set limits (or boundaries),” and so “define,” “decide,” “determine.” It is quite often used of God’s will and decision (Luke 22.22; Acts 2.23; 10.42; 17.26, 31; Hebrews 4.7). In English translations the verb appears in a variety of renderings: “declared,” “designated,” “appointed,” “marked out,” “demonstrated,” “installed,” “proclaimed,” and “foreordained.” This passive expression was shown may be transformed into an active expression—for example, “God showed with great power that he was his Son.”
With great power (literally “in power”) is usually taken either with the verb as in the Good News Translation (see An American Translation* “decisively declared”) or as a qualifier of the Son of God (Moffatt “Son of God with power”; Jerusalem Bible “Son of God in all his power”). Some translations make it independent (New English Bible “by a mighty act”), while Phillips connects it with the Holy Spirit (“marked out … by the power of that Spirit of holiness”).
The phrase by being raised from death presents at least three problems, (1) The phrase may be taken either in a temporal sense, “from the time of the resurrection,” or, as in most translations, in a causal sense. (2) Though this phrase (literally “resurrection of dead ones”) may be taken as a general resurrection of the dead, most exegetes take it to refer to Christ’s resurrection (Revised Standard Version “by his resurrection from the dead”). (3) It is possible to understand this phrase either in an active sense (New English Bible “he rose from the dead”) or in a passive sense, with God understood as the one who raised him from the dead (Moffatt “he was raised from the dead”; see also An American Translation* and Phillips). In light of the fact that Paul elsewhere in Romans speaks of God raising Christ from the dead (see 4.24; 6.4, 9; 8.11), it seems best to understand the present passage in a passive sense with God as the agent. This passive expression may be rendered as active, particularly if the preceding clause is transformed into an active expression. One may thus render the last part of verse 4 as “by the fact that God raised him from death” or “by the fact that God caused him to live again.” In some languages one cannot be “raised from death,” but one can be “caused to live again.”
The mention of the Good News in the last past of verse 1 led Paul to a further statement about the Good News in verse 2, and this in turn led to a Christological statement in verses 3 and 4. Paul now returns to the theme of his apostleship which he mentioned in verse 1.
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.