The name that is transliterated as “Abraham” in English is translated in virtually all sign languages, including American Sign Language with the sign signifying “hold back arm” (referring to Genesis 22:12).
In Tira it is transliterated as Abaram. The choice of this, rather than the widely-known “Ibrahim,” as used in the Tira translation of the Qu’ran, was to offset it against the Muslim transliteration which originates from Arabic. (Source: J.A. Naudé, C.L. Miller Naudé, J.O. Obono in Acta Theologica 43/2, 2023, p. 129ff. )
Click or tap here to see two short video clips about Abraham (source: Bible Lands 2012)
In Kadiwéu, it is not possible to use a rhetorical question for the purpose of linking subjects as is done in this case in the Greek (and English) text. Instead, the translators translated the whole verse as “Our forefather Abraham, how did he become just (righteous) before God?” (Source: Glyn Griffiths in Notes on Translation June 1986, p. 25ff.)
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 writer of the letter and the readers).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Following are a number of back-translations of Romans 4:1:
Uma: “So now we-take / let’s-take as an example Abraham, our forefather [lit., grandparent long ago]. What was the way that Abraham became straight in God’s sight?” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “So-then what do we (dual) say about Ibrahim, the forefather of us (excl.) Yahudi?” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “For example Abraham, the ancestor of us (excl.) Jews,” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Let us consider Abraham who is the ancestor of us Jews. What was the reason for which he was counted as righteous?” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “How about our ancestor Abraham? What did he do so that God cleared his sin?” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Since Abraham was the father of the Jewish nation and was looked upon by them as being completely acceptable in God’s sight, it will strengthen Paul’s argument to point out that Abraham was put right with God through faith, rather than through obedience to the Law.
The translation of this verse is complicated by the presence of a textual problem. Some manuscripts omit altogether the words what was his experience? (see Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, An American Translation*). If these words are omitted, then the passage may be translated: “What, then, are we to say about Abraham, our racial ancestor?” Other manuscripts place these words (literally “what did he find?”) in such a position in the sentence that they are connected with the phrase that the Good News Translation renders racial (literally “according to the flesh”). In this case the words “according to the flesh” must be taken to mean something like “on his own,” and the entire verse then rendered: “What did Abraham our ancestor accomplish on his own (that is, without God’s grace)?” but apparently no modern translations follow this choice of text (La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée gives it as an alternative possibility, though accepting the same reading as the Good News Translation in his text).
Most modern English translations prefer the shorter text, apparently assuming that the longer texts are the result of including a marginal note in the text. On the other hand, the Zürich Bibel, Luther, and La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée, along with the Good News Translation, are in accord with the UBS Committee as to the Greek text. In favor of the UBS text is the diversity of manuscript evidence, which gives strong support to their choice of text, while the shorter reading has very little manuscript support.
Verse 1 presents a number of translational problems. In the first place, the rhetorical questions may need to be expressed as statements, “we should now speak of Abraham, our ancestor. The following was his experience” or “… this was what happened to him.” However, a more difficult problem is involved in whether the inclusive or exclusive first person plural should be used in the phrase our racial ancestor. In his letter to the Romans Paul is obviously addressing an audience which is largely Gentile, as is clearly indicated in 1.6. Therefore it is necessary, in languages which do make a distinction in first person plurals, to use an exclusive form of “our” or to say “Abraham, the ancestor of the Jews.” Similarly, the editorial we in the rhetorical question should be changed to “I” in a number of languages.
In a number of languages it is both confusing, as well as superfluous, to translate “according to the flesh,” since a term for ancestor indicates specifically this kind of human relationship. Therefore, a term such as racial is often better omitted since it may constitute a misleading redundancy.
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.