Abstract
This paper examines the different word order in the otherwise identical words to Jesus of Martha in John 11.21 and of Mary in 11.32, and discusses what the purpose of this difference may have been, and how it could affect the translation of these verses.
In John 11, we have the account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. In reading the Greek text again recently, I was struck by something I had never noticed before, namely the difference in the word order between Martha’s remark to Jesus in v. 21, and Mary’s (almost) identical remark in v. 32. In NA27, the two sisters use identical words in the first part of their utterance kyrie ei ēs hōde, but the same words in a different order in the second part. Martha says ouk an apethanen ho adelphos mou, whereas Mary says ouk an mou apethanen ho adelphos. Why the difference, and what if anything does the change in word order imply?
The utterance of Martha seems to reflect an unmarked word order, whereas Mary’s order with the forward-shifting of mou (my) seems to place the possessive “my” under some emphasis. What if any conclusions may we draw, and what if any are the implications for translators? There is clearly no difference in the denotational meaning, but my intuition is that Mary’s word order would have carried a significantly more emotional connotation. We can safely infer from Luke 10.38-42 that Mary was much more of a “people person” than Martha, who was more focused on organization. In John 11, Martha follows up her perhaps somewhat reproachful comment to Jesus with a theological assertion (v. 22) which Jesus answers in kind, leading to a profound theological revelation (v. 25). By contrast, Mary, who has already prostrated herself at Jesus’ feet before she speaks, simply bursts into tears. Is it not likely that by using a more marked word order, she is stressing the close kinship she had felt with her brother, and the depth of her feeling of loss? If this interpretation is accepted, how could it be reflected in translation?
I have checked thirty different published versions in English (ten the work of individuals and the rest the work of committees) and found that twenty-five of them translate the words under consideration in vv. 21 and 32 identically. Of the other five, the Jerusalem Bible omits the vocative “Lord” in v. 21. Presumably this was an accidental omission, as there is no textual issue in the Greek, and the missing word is restored in the New Jerusalem Bible. The Good News Bible places the vocative “Lord” in mid-sentence in v. 21 and in sentence-initial position in v. 32. It is hard to see any rationale for this difference, and it does not carry any connotative significance that I can detect. The Amplified Bible renders the vocative as “Master” in v. 21 and “Lord” in v. 32. This might perhaps be intended to convey some theological distinction, but if so it would seem to be an imported distinction rather than a reflection of anything in the Greek text. On the other hand, it may be intended to imply that Mary had a fuller grasp than Martha of who Jesus really was. Even if this was the intention, it is hard to see how the context can be said to support it. Mary is too upset to be dealing in theological profundities.
Only two English versions have differences between vv. 21 and 32 that might be regarded as an attempt to reflect connotative difference in the Greek. The Living Bible has in v. 21, “Sir, if you had been here, my brother wouldn’t have died,” and in v. 32, “Sir, if you had been here, my brother would still be alive.” It could be maintained that Mary’s utterance is thus a little more hopeful than Martha’s, but this is not quite the same connotative difference as the Greek seems to suggest. In the New Living Translation, the two utterances are rendered identically as “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died,” so it appears that the revisers of the Living Bible did not recognize any connotative distinction to be intended by the original rendering.
The New English Bible has in v. 21, “If you had been here, sir, my brother would not have died,” and in v. 32, “O sir, if you had only been here my brother would not have died.” This does seem to be a creditable effort to reflect the more intensely emotional tone of Mary’s utterance in Greek, though for me at least, it would sound a bit more natural for Mary to say, “if only you had been here . . .” The REB translators apparently failed to recognize any purpose in the differences and homogenized both utterances to “Lord, if you had been here my brother would not have died.”
I have also checked twenty-eight published translations in seventeen other languages that I can follow sufficiently to understand whether the sisters’ utterances in vv. 21 and 32 were rendered identically or not. These were selected in a very random manner, all being versions that I could pick up from my own bookshelves without having to leave my study. There were four versions in French, three each in German and Ukrainian, two each in Bulgarian, Icelandic, Italian, and Russian, and one each in Latin, Church Slavonic, Belarussian, Modern Greek, Modern Hebrew, Norwegian, Lowland Scots, Spanish, Tok Pisin, and Thai. This relatively superficial check revealed some features that were at first puzzling. The Latin Vulgate had some variations between the two verses that seemed inexplicable. Then it dawned on me that as Jerome did not have the privilege of access to NA27, perhaps he was following a Byzantine Greek text. This did indeed prove to be the case, not only for the Latin Vulgate, but also for the Church Slavonic, so I had to eliminate these two versions from the investigation. Interestingly, the Modern Greek version published by the Greek Bible Society in 1989 does not follow the Byzantine text, and renders the two utterances identically. The 1999 edition I have is printed as a diglot with an Ancient Greek text approved by the Greek Orthodox Church, which in at least these verses follows the traditional Byzantine text. This text does not have the two utterances identical, but the difference was evidently disregarded by the Modern Greek translators.
Of all the other language versions, only six make any distinction between the two verses. Two show what seem to me to be trivial differences unrelated to the change in the Greek word order. These are the German version of Leander van Ess, which adds doch (then) in the first clause of Martha’s utterance, and the Ukrainian version of Homenko, which between the two clauses of Mary’s utterance has to (then) rather than a dash as in Martha’s. This looks more like a trivial matter of punctuation than an issue of meaning.
The Spanish common language version (Dios llega al hombre; the printing available to me is that of 1970) has the same words in both verses, but in a different order in the second clause, where in Mary’s utterance the words meaning “my brother” were placed before the verb. Was this a chance variation, or a deliberate attempt to make this phrase more emphatic in Mary’s mouth? Perhaps some colleague who was involved in this translation in those now distant days may be able to remember. I have been informed that the 2002 revision of this version has identical word order in both verses, which makes it appear that the original variation was not seen as purposeful. The new Ukrainian version published by the Ukrainian Bible Society in 1997 has a variation identical with that of the Spanish common language. I am not competent to assess whether it carries any connotative significance in Ukrainian, though it may not be impossible. It seems extremely unlikely that the Ukrainian was influenced by the Spanish.
That leaves only two other versions to examine. One is the Scots version of W. L. Lorimer, an eminent scholar of classical Greek. This uses the same words in both verses, but changes the word order, and adds an exclamation mark. Martha says, “Lord, gin ye hed been here, my brither wadna díed,” whereas Mary says, “Oh, gin ye hed been here, Lord, my brither wadna díed!” The addition of “Oh” to Mary’s utterance, together with the sentence-medial vocative and the final exclamation mark, does give a more emotional tone, but whether this truly reflects the Greek change of word order is more doubtful.
All the languages considered so far (except Hebrew) are Indo-European languages, and it is probable that few if any of them have the option of replicating the word order of the Greek in v. 32. The last version to comment on is the Thai Common Language version, which of course is not in an Indo-European language. This shows several interesting features, some arising from its own sociolinguistic context, and one in particular raising a question that does not arise in Europe. The first feature is that although both Martha and Mary were apparently close friends of Jesus, neither can address Jesus with a second-person pronoun. Both address him using the noun acharn, which is a polite way to address a respected male figure, especially a religious teacher, and is in effect a third-person form. In Martha’s utterance this sign of deference is taken to remove the need to repeat a vocative later in the sentence. Mary, however, includes acharn as a vocative at the beginning of her utterance, and repeats it in the first clause as the subject of the verb. The verb she uses in this clause is the same as that used by Martha, but Mary adds a word at the end of the clause that may be roughly translated as “already.” These two differences surely add intensity to Mary’s words. In the second clause, there is a verbal particle in Martha’s speech which is absent from Mary’s, though I am not sure what if any connotational impact this difference might convey.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of this version is that Thai is one of the many languages which, when a sibling is mentioned, require it to be stated whether the sibling is older or younger than the speaker. The relative ages of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus are a well-known conundrum for translators, and a definitive solution is impossible; regrettably, the Translator’s Handbooks on Luke and John make no reference to this question in their comments on the relevant verses. Like many others, the Thai translators have both Martha and Mary referring to Lazarus as a younger brother. (In Luke 10.40, they assumed that Martha was older than Mary.) European languages do not require any decision on this point, but the decision of the Thai translators opens up interesting possibilities for them. If it is accepted that Lazarus was in fact the youngest of the siblings, and that Mary’s word order does indeed emphasize her feeling of closeness to her brother and the emotional trauma of his death, then it suggests the option in European languages of considering such renderings as “my young brother would not have died,” or “my dear brother would not have died.” Perhaps even “my little brother would not have died” could be considered, though in English this would tend to imply that Lazarus was not yet an adult, and the New Testament gives no hint of that. In some other languages, it might be possible to use an affectionate diminutive form of the word for “brother” though English does not offer such an option.
This discussion may seem to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, yet we need to bear in mind that written texts do carry connotational meaning, not least in conversations reported in direct speech, and this may sometimes be conveyed by word order. So, especially in preparing translations for oral use, careful attention needs to be paid to how the receptors will hear the text, and what conclusions they are likely to draw, not least about the social relationships between the participants, and their emotional attitudes towards each other.
Bible versions checked
(dates refer to the copies in my possession)
English
Committee versions (20)
King James Version (1611), Revised Version (1881), New Testament in Basic English (1940), Revised Standard Version (1946), The Amplified Bible (New Testament 1958), New English Bible (1961), Jerusalem Bible (1966), Today’s English Version (1966), New American Bible (1970), New World Translation (1971), Translator’s New Testament (1973), New American Standard Bible (1976), New International Version (1978), New King James Version (1983), New Jerusalem Bible (1985), New Revised Standard Version (1989), Revised English Bible (1989), Contemporary English Version (1995), New Living Translation (1996), English Standard Version (2002).
Versions by individuals (10)
J. N. Darby (1884), James Moffatt (1935), Charles B. Williams (1937), J. B. Phillips (1952), Charles Kingsley Williams (1952), Ronald Knox (1955), William Barclay (1968), A. Cressman (1969), The Living Bible (1971), William F. Beck (1976).