Abstract
This article is a practical guide for translating kyrios in the Gospel of John. It considers the context of those translating into minority languages and vernaculars, especially when their language communities have access to a pre-existing translation in a language of wider communication. It takes into account the importance of textual criticism, semantics, acceptability, narrative, and paratext when trying to address challenges in Bible translation.
Keywords
1. Kyrios
Nida and Louw, in their Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament (1992, 121), identified kyrios as a term in need of further study due to its semantic complexity. Having completed a detailed study of the semantics of kyrios (Riley 2019b), my goal in this article is to draw on my previous research to provide a practical guide for addressing the challenges of translating kyrios in the Gospel of John. I will consider the context of those translating into minority languages and vernaculars, especially when their language communities have access to a pre-existing translation in a language of wider communication. I will take into account the importance of textual criticism, semantics, acceptability, narrative, and paratext when trying to address the challenge of translating kyrios in the Gospel of John.
According to Louw and Nida, the senses of kyrios are across four semantic domains. First, in the domain “Supernatural Beings and Powers,” kyrios means “one who exercises supernatural authority over mankind” (LN §12.9). 1 Second, in the domain for “possessing, transferring and exchanging,” it is used for “one who owns and controls property” (LN §57.12). Third, in the “controlling and ruling” domain, kyrios means “one who rules or exercises authority over others” (LN §37.51). Fourth, within the domain of “status,” kyrios is “a title of respect used in addressing or speaking of a man” (LN §87.53).
2. Challenges
There are four challenges when translating kyrios in the Gospel of John. First, there are some key places in the book where there is textual variation involving kyrios. In those cases, the translator(s) will need to evaluate the sometimes relatively balanced internal and external evidence. In addition, the narrative features of the Gospel are also relevant for making these textual decisions. Furthermore, in some cases, the acceptability of the translation may be a feature in deciding on the final text to translate.
Second, the decision of how to translate kyrios overlaps with the difficulty of translating other words with multiple senses. For each instance the word is used in the text, the meaning at that particular point in the narrative must first be determined before translating. In the Gospel of John, this is at times clear to the reader of the Greek text. At other times, the decision is more challenging.
Third, a decision needs to be made with respect to the status of kyrios as a keyword in the translation. If it is decided that kyrios is a keyword, then translators need to decide how this can work with the analysis of the term’s meaning in context. There is no doubt that, in this case, there will be tension between these two decisions to ensure a translation which is both accurate in the immediate context and does justice to the author’s use of kyrios throughout the text of the Gospel.
A fourth and closely related decision concerns the status of the Gospel of John as a narrative. Perhaps more than any other book in the New Testament, the Gospel of John exhibits tendencies towards ambiguity and double meaning. In addition, this Gospel appears to have a rich interplay of narrative features, including irony, which the author uses to great effect on the reader. When characters use kyrios, readers see the difference between what the characters mean and what the narrator means. This in turn challenges readers to consider who they believe Jesus is. The extent to which the translator attempts to retain these features in the narrative impacts the translation decision as well.
3. Text
It is assumed that most translators are working from a combination of the UBS Greek text and translations based on that text. In my detailed analysis of the textual variants related to kyrios in the Gospel of John (Riley 2019b), I agreed that the UBS text presents the earliest recoverable reading in almost every case. However, as there remains scope for improvement in UBS5 to recover the best text, I want to discuss variants where a case can be made against the reading in UBS5.
In John 4.1a, UBS5 reads Iēsous, and I have argued that the earliest recoverable reading is kyrios. A strong case for this reading has been made already by Van Belle (2002), and I have extended his argument, particularly with evidence from narrative criticism (Riley 2019b, 59–65). In sum, this verse is an example of the narrator in the Gospel of John using kyrios to refer to Jesus. It reminds the reader of the identification of Jesus as kyrios in 1.23. In addition, it heightens the reader’s awareness of this aspect of Jesus’ identity when reading the encounter of Jesus and the Samaritan woman (4.1-26), in which she addresses Jesus as kyrios three times. In 4.1, the referent of the word is initially ambiguous, as the reader asks, “Who is this kyrios?” This may have been a reason for the change to Iēsous, resulting in greater textual explicitness (Riley 2019a). Therefore, I argue that translators should consider the merits of translating kyrios in 4.1a.
In 9.38-39a, UBS5 has the man born blind addressing Jesus as kyrios, and I have argued that this longer text is secondary. Two scholars, Calvin Porter (1967) and Michael Theophilos (2012), have made detailed cases that this variant is a later expansion of the text. As with 4.1, I have built on their arguments, particularly with the application of narrative criticism (Riley 2019b, 114–22). The external evidence for the shorter reading is early and diverse (
Despite the strength of the case against the inclusion of vv. 38-39a, a significant issue needs to be considered by translators. That is the concern for acceptability. I am not aware of any recent translation that omits 9.38-39a. As a result, I assume any community that already has access to Scripture in some form will have vv. 38-39a in pre-existing translations. In this situation, Carl Gross’s 2003 discussion of the criterion of “acceptability” needs to be considered by the translation team. If the removal of 9.38-39a from the main text would have adverse effects on the acceptability of the translation, the team will need to decide whether it is best to retain the variant in the main text, and provide an explanation of its status in the paratext. 2
4. Meaning
The table below provides the Louw and Nida category for each occurrence of kyrios in the Gospel of John. Detailed arguments for these results are available in my previous study of this topic. 3 A gloss is used as a convenient pointer to the four senses of kyrios outlined above.
5. Pre-existing translations
Before presenting some strategies for translating kyrios in new translations of the Gospel of John, it is important to survey pre-existing translations. Much can be learned as we consider different approaches to translating kyrios.
Some translations show little to no variation in word choice for translating kyrios. The translator(s) of the Latin Vulgate did not seem to face a challenge when making choices regarding kyrios. From 1.23 to 21.21, the translation has a single Latin word, dominus. This translation is made possible by the semantic overlap between kyrios and dominus. At the same time, it may also reflect a desire to achieve concordance in the translation, where each Greek word is always represented by a single Latin word. Even if this approach did play a role in the translation decisions, the translation gives the reader of the receptor language a similar experience to the reader of the Greek. A single word, with a wide semantic range, is employed in different contexts with different senses, and the reader must construe the meaning in context for each occurrence. Another translation that exhibits a similar overall pattern to the Vulgate is the German Lutherbibel, which has Herr in each case. For French, the Segond has Seigneur throughout, except for three cases in the upper-room discourse where kyrios is contrasted with doulos. In 13.16, seigneur is not capitalized, clarifying a distinction with Seigneur, and in 15.15 and 15.20 maître is employed. For Spanish, the Reina Valera uses Señor throughout, except for 13.16; 15.15; and 15.20, where señor is not capitalized.
Other translations reveal the effort of the translators to make word choices that reflect contextual meaning. This is evident in a range of English translations. Unlike the languages surveyed above, English does not have a single word with a similar semantic range to kyrios. In NRSV, for example, the translators have chosen one term when kyrios is used as a term of respect, employing sir throughout. For the three cases where kyrios means “one who owns and controls property,” master is used. In all other cases, those encompassing Louw and Nida’s first category, “one who exercises supernatural authority over mankind,” and third category, “one who rules or exercises authority over others,” the same term, Lord, is employed.
Two issues arise from this translation choice. If the reader understands the capitalized Lord as an appropriate title for both divine and non-divine figures, then the reader must discern in each context what the speaker means. However, if this term is understood by the reader as referring to deity alone, then there is no choice to be made. Each time a character addresses Jesus as “Lord,” the reader will understand this as a confession of Jesus’ deity. If the reader understands “Lord” in this way, several passages will be perplexing. For example, Martha addresses Jesus as “Lord” while revealing that she appears to doubt his power over death in the present (11.39), and Mary Magdalene calls Jesus “Lord” whilst searching for his dead body (20.2). At the same time, the NRSV translation team’s concern for contextually appropriate word choice can be seen by comparing it to RSV. For example, in 6.34, RSV has the (unbelieving) crowd addressing Jesus as “Lord,” but NRSV has revised this to “Sir.” This same change in the translation can be seen in 8.11, when the woman caught in adultery addresses Jesus as kyrie. Finally, when the man born blind addresses Jesus twice as kyrie in the space of two verses, NRSV has “Sir” (9.36), then “Lord” (9.38), reflecting a shift in his understanding of Jesus.
There are four insights that can be derived from this brief survey of pre-existing translations of the Gospel of John. First, if a translation uses a term in the receptor language that has significant semantic overlap with kyrios, the reader of the translation will need to construe the meaning of each occurrence of the word based upon contextual constraints. 9 This at the same time provides a reading experience similar to that of readers of the Greek text, but also requires significant cognitive effort to be expended whilst reading or listening to the translation. Second, if it is possible to use a single term that conveys more than one of the sense categories of kyrios, this allows the reader to experience the narrative dynamic of irony when characters use kyrios in ways that contrast with the narrator’s use. Third, when multiple terms are used for translating kyrios, the reader is left with fewer challenges when reading, as there is less scope to require semantic construal based upon contextual factors alone. Rather, the conventional constraints related to the term chosen provide much of the guidance needed to read the translation. Fourth, the most significant difference in the four sense categories of kyrios is between categories one (LN §12.9) and three (LN §37.51). While the third category includes the notion of exercising authority, only the first includes the idea of supernatural authority exercised by a supernatural being. Therefore, it is paramount that translation choices facilitate the delineation of this difference, so that the reader is not led astray by a word that is reserved for deity in contexts where the narrative does not support this sense category.
6. Strategies for translation
In light of these insights, the translation team will need to decide what kind of reading experience they are providing to their readers. The team may decide that it is best for the reader to construe the meaning of a word with a broad semantic range based on contextual evidence. In this case, and depending on the lexical stock of the receptor language, less than four separate expressions could be chosen for equivalents to kyrios to cover its four semantic categories. For example, it may be possible to find a term that overlaps with semantic categories two and three, covering both owning and ruling. However, if the team desires to translate in such a way that the reader is not challenged to construe the meaning of the chosen terms in context, then up to four separate terms may be needed in order to accurately communicate the meaning of kyrios in contextually appropriate ways. Both of these approaches have drawbacks. If a single term is chosen, the cognitive load on the reader may distract from the readability of the translation. If multiple terms are chosen, the reader misses a key strategy the author employs in the narrative to highlight aspects of Jesus’ identity, which challenges the reader to consider for themselves who they believe Jesus is.
Depending on the lexical stock of the receptor language, it may be possible to retain the narrative dynamic of irony, whilst producing a translation that provides the reader with accurate and specific in-context translations of kyrios. This can be achieved by treating kyrios in some sense as a keyword, and choosing a base term for translation that communicates a sense category, such as “respect.” Following the guidance of Louw and Nida, a base term can be combined with other expressions that explicate its meaning in context. 10 For example, when Mary Magdalene is looking for the body of Jesus, she refers to him as her kyrios (20.2). She then sees Jesus, but thinks he is the gardener, and addresses him as kyrios (20.15). Then, after Jesus reveals to her that he is returning to the Father, and Mary understands that Jesus is a supernatural being, she confesses that she has seen the kyrios (20.18). In this short stretch of narrative, kyrios is used with three senses. If the base term is supplemented with qualifying phrases, such as “the one I respect who rules over me” (20.2) and “the one I respect who is God” (20.18), then the reader can experience the same dynamics as the first readers of the Gospel of John, whilst also benefiting from explicit guidance as to the meaning of kyrios in each occurrence.
7. Semantics and translations
There are some further considerations with regard to using the table of semantic categories above in translation. First, in 1.23, John uses a quotation of Isa 40.3 to refer to the coming of the God of Israel in Jesus, so has a dual referent in mind. Translation teams need to consider translating in such a way that allows their audience to make the same connections as the original audience.
Second, only the narrator identifies Jesus as divine between 1.23 and 20.18. These occurrences are 4.1; 6.23; and 11.2. In each case, Jesus needs to be identified with an expression that clarifies his divinity.
Third, there are three references to God as kyrios in ch. 12. For all three, it is appropriate to use the same expression as in 4.1; 6.23; and 11.2. This clarifies for the reader that what Scripture says about the God of Israel—that he is the divine Lord—the narrator of the Gospel of John is saying about Jesus. This is further emphasized in 12.38 where there is a possible reference to both God and Jesus.
Fourth, all other characters who address Jesus as kyrios between 1.23 and 20.18 are not presented as explicitly acknowledging Jesus’ divinity. This issue was raised above in the analysis of NRSV, where several characters address Jesus as “Lord” prior to his glorification. If the term chosen could be used both for a “mere” mortal and for the divine Lord, this would create the same dynamic found in the Latin, German, French, and Spanish translations above, so that readers would need to construe the meaning in context.
Fifth, in 9.38-39, the textual variant, which I have argued was not part of the original text of John, has the man born blind addressing Jesus as kyrios and his action toward Jesus is described with the verb proskyneō. If the team has decided to include this variant in the main text, the criterion of acceptability becomes a factor in the translation. If there is a desire to keep the main text of the translation the same as a pre-existing translation, it may be necessary to translate prosekynēsen as an act of worshiping someone as divine, and to translate kyrios as a confession of belief in Jesus’ divinity. However, the team may decide to retain the narrative dynamic of characters not fully recognizing Jesus before his glorification. If so, the team would need to translate kyrios according to LN category three (§37.51), so that kyrios is used in the sense that Jesus exercises authority over the man, who does not know Jesus is divine. In that case, prosekynēsen can be translated as “prostrated in order to honor.” 11 This proposal is an attempt to balance the realities of translation projects utilizing paratextual aids for alternatives.
Sixth, from 20.18 on, kyrios should be translated in such a way that the reader can understand that the characters know that Jesus is the divine Lord. 12 They have recognized his deity by virtue of his glorification.
8. Conclusion
In this article, I have provided some practical guidance for translators who are wrestling with how to translate kyrios in the Gospel of John. I hope that the guidance is potentially relevant to translating kyrios in the other Gospels, and even translating other polysemous words in the Bible.
Footnotes
2.
The issue of pre-existing Scripture translations applies also to the text of 7.53–8.11, which includes kyrios at 8.11. Again, translation teams will need to decide how they balance features of the main text and the available paratextual mechanisms to handle this issue.
4.
“Sir” represents LN §87.53, “a title of respect used in addressing or speaking of a man.” “Master” represents LN §37.51, “one who rules or exercises authority over others.” “Owner” represents LN §57.12, “one who owns and controls property, including especially servants and slaves.” “Lord” represents LN §12.9, a supernatural being “who exercises supernatural authority.”
5.
Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples.
6.
Although I do not believe this verse was in the original text of the Gospel of John, it is provided here for the sake of completeness, as it is assumed this passage will be included in new translations.
7.
See the discussion below on deciding between these two options.
8.
There is no explicit subject. The context suggests Mary and Martha as the most suitable subject.
10.
In LN §12.9, there is the example of using a base term, such as “chief” or “leader,” for kyrios and then supplementing as necessary to explicate other semantic categories.
11.
See LN §17.20.
12.
The one exception to this is in 21.20, which contains a flashback to a time before the crucifixion.