Following are a number of back-translations of 1 John 3:7:
Uma: “My children, don’t you allow any of those who want to deceive you [to do so]. People who do God’s will, they are upright people, like Yesus is upright.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “My children-grandchildren, be careful so that you will not be led astray from the true teaching. Whoever does the straight/righteous, is straight as Almasi (is).” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “My children, it’s necessary that you do not listen to any lying person who would like to teach you. What is true is this: if there is a person who behaves properly, he is the righteous person just like Christ is righteous.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “My children whom I esteem, be careful so you are not deceived. Whoever continually does what is good, that is a righteous (lit. straight) person as is Cristo just the same.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “My like children, don’t let yourselves be misled by anyone. As for the one who does righteousness, he is righteous in the sight of God, like Jesu-Cristo who is really righteous.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Listen, my children, don’t let anyone deceive you into committing sin. The one who lives good is good like Jesus Christ is good.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Yatzachi Zapotec: “My little children, we must not permit anyone to deceive us. If we do what we ought to do we walk straight as Christ walks straight (is righteous).”
Eastern Highland Otomi: “My dear children, don’t let ourselves be deceived. He who habitually does good, it is known that his heart is good, like Christ.”
Tzotzil: “My children, don’t let anyone deceive you. If what we do is good, it is because our hearts are straight like Christ’s heart is straight.” (Source for this and two above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)
Following are a number of back-translations of 1 John 5:6:
Uma: “Yesus Kristus, he is God’s Child who arrived in the world. Yohanes the Baptizer baptized him with water. His blood flowed when he died crucified. So, it is clear that Yesus is God’s Child, not only from his being baptized, but from his dying too And the Holy Spirit also affirms-the-truth that Yesus is God’s Child, and what the Holy Spirit says is certainly true.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Isa Almasi is God’s Son. We (dual) know that because when he was here in the world he was bathed/baptized with water and his blood flowed when he died. We (dual) know that he is God’s Son because of the water he was bathed/baptized in and the blood that flowed, not just because of the water. And God’s Spirit also witnesses that this is true, for everything that God’s Spirit says is really true.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Jesus Christ is the one whom His Father sent here to the earth. This can be perceived by means of water and blood. This is not perceived only by water which was His baptism, but rather also by means of the blood which was the flowing of His blood at the time He was nailed to the cross. The Holy Spirit is the one who testifies this to us (incl.) for what He says is always true.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “When Jesu Cristo came to this earth, there were three-things which confirmed that he was the Child of God. The one, it was his being baptized in/with water. But it wasn’t only his being baptized which confirmed-it but rather his blood as well which flowed-down at his death. As for the third, it was the Holy Spirit, and all that he says is true. These three, what they confirmed regarding Jesu Cristo was the same.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “As for this Jesu-Cristo, he’s the one who came down here to the world. He was baptized in water. His blood was shed (lit.caused-to-drip) at his death. He really didn’t just have himself baptized in water, but rather he also caused his blood to be shed too. And the one who testifies to this is the Espiritu Santo, because wholly truth is what this Espiritu Santo gives-out/reveals.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “This Jesus Christ came here. It was made known that he was the Son of God when he was baptized in the water and when his blood was shed where he died. But not only was he just baptized, rather he was baptized and he was killed. The Holy Spirit himself gives his testimony about who Jesus Christ is and the Holy Spirit speaks all that is true.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Yatzachi Zapotec: “Jesus Christ came to this world, he was baptized, and he shed his blood dying. He did not come and just be baptized, but also he shed his blood and died. And the Spirit of God speaks about him. The Spirit speaks true words.”
Eastern Highland Otomi: “Jesus Christ came here to the world. He was baptized with water, he is the same one who spilled out his blood, he died, and not only was he baptized with water, but also he spilled his blood, in that he died. He is Jesus Christ, God’s Chosen-One. This is what God’s Good Spirit tells us, who shows us the truth.”
Tzotzil: “It is the Son of God, it is Jesus Christ that came and was baptized here in the world, who came and shed his blood on the cross. It was not only that he came and was baptized. He also came and shed his blood on the cross. Thus the Holy Spirit tells us. He tells the truth. The Holy Spirit does not know how to lie.” (Source for this and two above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)
Danish (Bibelen på Hverdagsdansk, 2022): “Jesus Christ came through water and blood. Not only did he have to be born as a human being through the water, but he also had to die as a human being, so that his blood was shed. …” (Source: Iver Larsen)
German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999): “Jesus Christ takes effect in water and blood. For he shed blood in his death, and this takes effect in the water of baptism, which washes us. The Holy Spirit bears witness to what happens in baptism: We become children of God. And the Holy Spirit is God’s reality in the Word.”
Following are a number of back-translations of 3 John 1:4:
Uma: “There is nothing that I am more happy about than this, hearing news that says my child(ren) continually follow the true teaching.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “There is nothing that makes my liver happy other than when I hear that my children are remaining/steadfastly with the true teaching.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “What I am really happy about is the fact that I heard the news that my children in the faith are obeying the true doctrine.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “because there is no best cause-of-my-happiness if not my having heard that my children are following the true teaching.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Nothing can exceed my happiness when I have received news that the lives of my like children are in harmony with the truth.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “There is no greater joy except the joy I have when I hear that my children are taking hold of the true word.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Yatzachi Zapotec: “There is nothing else that I rejoice over like this that I know you are walking with the truth, you and the other people who are like my children.”
Eastern Highland Otomi: “There is no other joy greater than the joy I have when I hear that my children follow the Word.”
Isthmus Zapotec: “Nothing makes my happier than to hear my children following that which is true.” (Source for this and three above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)
Following are a number of back-translations of 1 John 2:15:
Uma: “Let’s not love this world, or any of its contents. Whoever loves this world, they don’t love God the Father.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Don’t feel-good/like-to-do doing the things most people in this world do and don’t feel-good-about/like the various things in this world. Whoever feels-good-about/likes these things, he does not love his Father God.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “It is necessary that the activities of the people here on the earth who are the enemies of God are not big in our (incl.) breath; it is also necessary that there is nothing here on the earth which is big in our breath. For if there is a person and what is big in his breath are those things, it is not possible that what is dear in his breath is our Father God.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “You shouldn’t love the behavior which is opposed to what God wants and that which is on this earth, because if you love these-things, you also have no love for God our Father.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “I urge you, no longer give preference to the ways of here under the heavens which are opposed to the will of God, or whatever here which is opposed to him. Because whoever still chooses-to-remain-committed-to these, it’s clear that he has no holding dear for this Father of ours.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Do not like the evil there is here in the world. He who likes the evil here in the world is the person who does not know how to love our Father.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Yatzachi Zapotec: “Do not you desire intensely to do like the evil head-hearted people do, and likewise do not you desire intensely the things you will have in this world. We know if we are desiring intensely to do like the evil head-hearted people are doing, we have not yet come to love our father God.”
Eastern Highland Otomi: “Don’t like the world, neither the deeds of the world. If someone likes (loves) the world, he doesn’t esteem God.”
Tzotzil: “Don’t let it be that your hearts get taken up with what belongs to the world and what is here in the world. Because if our hearts are taken up with what belongs to the world, we don’t love our Father God.”
Garifuna: “Don’t you love the world’s character/conduct, nor any of the things which are in the world. If a person loves that which pertains to the world, he does not love (our) Father.” (Source for this and three above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)
Following are a number of back-translations of 1 John 3:18:
Uma: “My children, let’s not be loving in lips only, let’s not say that we love our relatives and we not do anything to help them. We [should be] loving with our behavior, for that is really true love.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “My children-grandchildren, don’t let us (incl.) just love with words/speech. But if we (dual) say we (dual) love our (dual) fellow-man, we (dual) should make our (dual) words true/confirm/verify them and cause good deeds to accompany (the words) toward them (the fellow-men).” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “My dear children, it’s necessary that our love for our companions is not just mere words, but rather it is necessary that we show our love for them by means of our actions.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “You who are my children, our manner-of-loving our companions, it should not be merely in our words only, but rather it should be from-the-heart and it should be shown in what we are doing.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “You who are like my children, what is good is, we are not just saying that we value one other, but rather we are showing through what we are doing that this valuing of ours is true.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Listen, my children, only let it not come from your mouths that we love our fellowmen, rather let it be apparent that we truly love, let us help our fellowmen.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Yatzachi Zapotec: “My little children, we must not love our fellows just with words. We should not just say we love our fellows, but we must love them wholeheartedly and help our fellows.”
Eastern Highland Otomi: “My dear children, let us not just talk about love, but let us really do it.”
Tzotzil: “My children, don’t let it be in vain we say that we love each other, don’t let’s lie. Let our work appear that we love each other really and truly.”
Garifuna: “My children. Let us love each other, not just that which is speaking nor just that which we say. Let us love one another genuinely, that which we show by means of what we do.” (Source for this and two above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)
Following are a number of back-translations of 1 John 5:17:
Uma: “All evil doing, sin is its name. But there is sin(s) that does not bring eternal punishment.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “All doing bad is certainly sin, but there is sin that draws God’s wrath.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Sin is any kind of evil doing, and there is a sin whose result is not death.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “It is admittedly true that all bad that is done is sin, but there is nevertheless sin that can be forgiven so it does not lead to punishment that has no end.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “The truth is, each thing we do which is opposed to the will of God, that is sin. But except for that which I mentioned, there is indeed forgiveness.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “All that is evil is sin. But there are sins which can be forgiven a person.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Yatzachi Zapotec: “Everything which people do which does not go straight (is not righteous) is evil. But there is evil which people do which does not make them and their head-hearts like a dead person.”
Eastern Highland Otomi: “All whenever one departs in regard to the good, it is sin. But sometimes one sins not taking the evil road for good.”
Tzotzil: “All that is bad-evil, it is sin. There is sin that we will not be lost (eternally) because of it.” (Source for this and two above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)
Following are a number of back-translations of 3 John 1:15:
Uma: “Goodness to you. Many greetings from all your friends here. Deliver for me my greetings to all my friends who are there, every one of them. Finish here.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “May your liver be peaceful. All your friends send word that they love/remember you. Tell for me our (incl.) friends one by one that I remember/love them. Wassalam” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “May your (sing.) life be peaceful. All your (sing.) friends here send-greetings. Please greet our friends there one-by-one. This is all I am able to say.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “May God give you peace of heart. Your friends here greet you. Please greet our friends there where you are.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Yatzachi Zapotec: “May you have peace in your heart. Your friends who are here greet you. Greet our (ex) friends there each one.”
Eastern Highland Otomi: “May God rest your hearts. Your friends who are (live) here send you greetings. Greet our friends, each one who is (lives) there. This is what I tell you now.”
Isthmus Zapotec: “May your heart be quiet. Your friends send you greetings. Give greetings to each one of our friends.” (Source for this and two above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)
In English, the Greek term Pneûma tò Hagion is translated as “Holy Ghost” or “Holy Spirit.” The English terms referring to Pneûma are synonyms: “ghost” is derived from Old Englishgast (“breath” or “good or bad spirit”) and “spirit” from Latinspiritus (“breath” or “supernatural immaterial creature”). Until the late 19th century, English translators of all traditions used “Holy Ghost” (or “holy Ghost”) but generally switched to “Holy Spirit” (or “holy Spirit”) thereafter, likely because the meaning of “ghost” had transitioned to predominantly refer to the spirit of a dead person.
Other languages with a long tradition in Bible translation translate Pneûma (for “holy” see holy) as follows (click or tap here to see more):
While a few Germanic languages still use terms derived from gast (see above) including German and Dutch (Geist and Geest respectively), the majority use forms of Proto*-Germanic anadô (“breath,” “spirit,” “zeal” — used in Latin as anima), including Danish (Ånden), Swedish (Ande/ande — for more on the gender of the Swedish translation, see below), Icelandic (andi), and Norwegian (Ånd/ånd). (*”Proto” refers to the most recent common, often hypothetical language ancestor). Note that the earliest-known German translation was “holy breath” (wîh atum) (source: Renck 1990, p. 105)
The majority of Romance languages use a form of the LatinSpiritus (French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Catalan among others). (Note that in the French 1985 translation by Chouraqui, souffle sacré or “sacred breath” is used [source: Watson 2023, p. 52])
Slavic languages derive their translation from the Proto-Slavic dȗxъ (“breath,” “wind,” “spirit”), including Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Bulgarian (all: Дух)
Most Semitic languages (Hebrew, Arabic, Assyrian, Chaldean — with the exception of Maltese which uses the Latin-based l-Ispirtu s-Santu), Iranian languages (Urdu, Tajik, Dari, Persian, Pashto), Turkic languages (Uzbek, Turkish), Malayic languages (Indonesian, Balinese, Sangir, and Malay — for further information on Malay, see below) use a derivative of the Proto-Semitic rūḥ- (“to blow,” “breathe”). Compare the Hebrew term ruach (רוּחַ: “breath,” “wind,” “spirit”) in the Old Testament. (For the use of Roho in Swahili, see below)
Bratcher / Nida say this about the translation into languages that do not have an existing Bible translation (click or tap here to see more):
“Undoubtedly no word has given quite so much trouble to the Bible translator as spirit, for (1) it includes such a wide range of meaning, from ‘evil spirit’ to ‘poor in spirit’ to ‘Holy Spirit’ and (2) it touches so vitally the crucial comparison and contrast between Christianity and so-called ‘animism.’
“There are four principal dangers in the choice of a word for Holy Spirit: (1) the term may identify an essential malevolent spirit, and no mere addition of the word ‘holy’ or ‘good’ is likely to change the basic connotation of the word, (2) the word may mean primarily the spirit of a deceased person (hence God must have died — a not infrequent error in Bible translations), (3) the expression used to mean ‘spirit’ may denote only an impersonal life force, a sort of soul-stuff which may be conceived as indwelling all plant, animal, and human substances (therefore, to say that ‘God is spirit’ is to deny His essential personality), and (4) a borrowed term may signify next to nothing to the people, and can only be explained by another term or terms, which, if they are adequate to explain the borrowing, should have been used in the first place. It is true that in some instances a borrowed word has seemed to be the only alternative, but it should be chosen only as a last resort.
“There is no easy formula to be employed in finding an adequate equivalent for Holy Spirit, for what seems to work quite well in one area may not serve in another. One thing, however, is certain: one should not select a term before making a comprehensive study of all kinds of words for spirits and for parts or aspects of personality and thus having as complete a view as possible of all indigenous beliefs about supernatural beings.”
Following are ways that languages without a long tradition Bible translation have translated Pneûma (click or tap here to see more):
Western Highland Chatino: “God’s perfect heart” J. Hefley (1968, p. 210) tells this story (click or tap here to read more):
“Ninu [a Chatino translation assistant] told his translator that the word ‘holy’ could be used to modify an idol, a household god, the witch doctor, an altar, a lion, the sea which had caused a flood and disaster, a sacred mushroom, and several other things. The translator and his consultant deduced that holy had two main components of meanings for Chatinos. It referred to persons purported to hold supernatural powers, and to objects which, if not properly respected, would bring evil upon one. With this and other information, they agreed that they could not use the Chatino word for ‘holy’ and ‘spirit’ in defining the third person of the Trinity. Their approved translation for Holy Spirit became ‘God’s perfect heart’ (referring primarily to the life principles of one who is living).”
Malay (Today’s Malay Version, publ. 1987): Roh Allah: “Spirit of God.” Barclay Newman (in The Bible Translator 1974, p. 432ff. ) explains this as follows (click or tap here to see more):
“A third difficult phrase that had to be dealt with was ‘Holy Spirit,’ since in popular Islamic theology there are many ‘holy spirits.’ In order to overcome this problem it was decided that ‘the Holy Spirit’ would always be rendered ‘God’s Spirit,’ and that wherever ‘Spirit’ or ‘the Spirit’ was used as a reference to God’s Spirit this would be clearly marked.
“Other illustrations could be given of the clearing up of ambiguous and difficult phrases, but only one more will be selected, and it will serve as a transition to the next major section of this article. In John 6:63 the phrase ‘Spirit and life’ (in the expression ‘the words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’) is taken to refer to one thing not two. That is, even though the words are connected by the conjunction ‘and’ they are not in the relationship to one another that ‘and’ normally suggests. Moreover, ‘spirit’ in John’s Gospel, unless otherwise indicated, always refers to God’s Spirit. So then, the Common Malay has translated with the meaning, ‘the words which I speak come from God’s Spirit and bring life.’ This exegesis also has the advantage of tying in the meaning closely to the previous verse.
“As previously indicated, except in the passages where the context clearly indicates otherwise (John 11:33; John 13:21; John 19:30), it was assumed that ‘spirit’ or ‘the spirit’ refer to God’s Spirit, and so the translator always made this information explicit. For example, John the Baptist’s words in John 1:32 become ‘I saw God’s Spirit come down like a dove from heaven.’ The one exception to this rule is in 3:8a, where there is a play on words. In Greek, as in Hebrew, the same word may mean either ‘wind’ or ‘spirit.’ In this context most translations take ‘wind’ to be the basic comparison, and so have translated in this way; and some have even provided a footnote, indicating the play on words. Since the basic comparison here is seen to be ‘wind,’ the Malay New Testament translated the text in this way.”
Japanese uses the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御 or み) when the referent is God, as in mi-tama (御霊) or “Spirit (of God)” (source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
“The Shipibo consider all spirits evil, with the exception of certain entities making up a human personality. It would be a manifest contradiction to say ‘Good Evil-Spirit’ for ‘Holy Spirit,’ and it would be completely misinterpreted if one should say that Jesus perceived in his evil-spirit that some of the scribes thus questioned within their hearts (Mark 2:8).
“For these reasons we have translated this word (…) when it unmistakably refers to a disembodied evil personality yoshin ‘demon.’ (‘Unclean spirit’ we have translated ‘harmful demon.’)
“When it refers to the ‘Holy Spirit,’ we have finally translated it ‘Spotless Spirit,’ using for ‘Spirit’ a word designating one of the larger entities of human personality, the one which includes most of the others and which is always used of a live person.”
Sranan Tongo: Santa Yeye (from previously Santa Winti). Marlon Winedt explains (click or tap here to see more):
“One of the translators in Sranan Tongo followed the historically and scientifically correct analysis that the word for Holy Spirit should be ‘Santa Winti.’ However, the churches had traditionally used ‘Santa Yeye.’ Although in the spiritual world-mapping of the afro-descendants of the country Santa Yeye refers to a more limited spirit, it was the most acceptable choice because ‘winti’ besides meaning ‘spirit, wind’ also refers to the afro-Caribbean religion /spiritual practice ‘winti’ which can be compared to voodoo or other forms in the Caribbean. The Catholic lectionary used this translation (Santa Winti) though there was a heated debate about the use. The then-bishop of Paramaribo advised the faithful to choose whether they wanted to say Santa Winti or Santa Yeye when reading the text. In the interior of Suriname, Catholic catechists actually burned the lectionary because they found the term Santa Winti to be blasphemous.
“When the Sranan Tongo New Testament translation project was underway an attempt to merge two teams did not succeed partially based on this issue. Ultimately the remaining SIL/Bible Society of Suriname team did not chose to use Santa Winti but the accepted Santa Yeye. [This version was published in 2002.]”
“In Anuak there is no term for ‘spirit’ in the sense of the Holy Spirit.
“There is a word (ywey) which may be used to translate human soul or spirit, but which is essentially the ‘life principle.’ One cannot speak of the ywey of God, for the Anuaks insist that God does not have a ywey and that He is not a ywey. It is God who has given ywey to all people, animals and plants, but He Himself is of a different order of existence.
“To speak of the ywey of God would be to equate him with earthly creation. There seems to be no easy solution to this problem, but for the time being ‘Spirit’ is to be translated as ‘that which comes from God’, in the sense of that which emanates from or has its origin in God.”
Kaingang: Topẽ kuprĩg (God’s Spirit — kuprĩg is often to the spirit of a dead person). Ursula Wiesemann (in Notes on Translation 1978, p. 32ff.) explains how the translation team reached that conclusion (click or tap here to see more):
“All human beings have a kãnhvég which has as an outward manifestation the shadow or the reflection of that person. It is closely linked to the body and cannot leave it. It is an indication of life in the body. According to one language helper, it lives in our chest (that is, heart), but this may be a carry-over from his Christian teaching.
“The kãnhvég at death becomes vẽnh kuprĩg. Vẽnh is a pronoun meaning ‘someone’s’. The vẽnh kuprĩg seem to live in groups and can be heard at night making a peculiar humming noise. They may do mischievous things like throwing dirt on the house which scares the inhabitants. A vẽnh kuprĩg may also appear to an individual, be recognized by him for whose spirit he is, speak kindly to him, and even touch him. The purpose is to take the living person along to the place where the dead live. It is reported that in this way the vẽnh kuprĩg cause death, or that they might even choke babies to death during the night. In describing an encounter with a vẽnh kuprĩg, the Indians say: ‘I saw a vẽnh kuprĩg. It was so-and-so.’ Whereas kãnhvég collocates with all pronouns and names (that is, can be directly identified as belonging to a specific person), kuprĩg collocates most naturally with vẽnh when it refers to the spirit of a dead person.
“Such conflicting reports on the meaning of the terms is difficult to choose the right terms for the Spirit of God. In Rio das Cobras and in Guarita, God is said to have a kuprĩg and a kãnhvég, but it is His kuprĩg who has a life of his own without being tied to God’s body. In both localities (and some others, where, however, the question was not looked into in detail as in the three areas identified), the definite and unquestioned choice of all people asked was to identify the ‘Holy Spirit’ as Topẽ kuprĩg ‘Spirit of God’. In Nonoai (same dialect area as Guarita but different dialect area from Rio das Cobras), however, the definite and unquestioned choice is Topẽ kãnhvég ‘because kuprĩg refers to the spirit of one who died.’ So it will be necessary to use both terms in a paraphrase to satisfy everyone. The objection to kãnhvég is its close tie to a body, and only in Nonoai this connection seems to be broken.
“Postscript: Since writing the above, several years have passed, and the New Testament has been completed, and the revision committee, composed of three Indians from as many dialect areas, unanimously chose Topẽ kuprĩg for ‘Spirit of God,’ rejecting the word kãnhvég as being ‘too weak and not meaningful’ — that is, the kãnhvég is not a spirit at all but just a sign of life, so it has been dropped in the last revision, as well as the reference to the ‘kãnhvég not dying’ as eternal life.”
Papiamento: Spiritu. Since the term on its own means “bad spirit,” in any case that no modifier is used (such as “Holy” or “of truth”), the translators used Spiritu di Dios (“Spirit of God”) to differentiate it from the negative connotation (source: Marlon Winedt).
Ditammari: “Air of God.” Loewen (in The Bible Translator 1983, p. 213ff. ) explains that a search for the term “spirit” was conducted (especially as in “Holy Spirit”). Since faith healers often avoided using the name of unclean spirits by saying “impure air” a suggestion was made to call Holy Spirit “clean/pure air”. This was accepted but changed to “air of God” to avoid ambiguity with air that we breath.
Warlpiri: Pirlirrpa Kaatu-kurlangu: “God’s Eternal Spirit,” since “holy’ carries the meaning of taboo and cannot be used (source: Stephen Swartz in The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )
Eastern Highland Otomi: “God’s Good Spirit” (source: John Beekman in Notes on Translation November 1964, p. 1-22.)
Kahua: the term for “Spirit” is a generic term for a spirit which never had a body (i.e., not the spirit of a dead ancestor). (Source: David Clark)
Keapara: Vea’a Palaguna (“Holy Spirit” but can also be “Holy God” or “angels” — “there is not a strong contrast between the meaning of God and Holy Spirit” since “God” is translated with “Palagu”) (source: Norm Mundhenk in The Bible Translator 2004, p. 222f. )
Naro: Tc’ẽe: a word that refers to the “thinking/willing part” of one’s personality. (Source: van Steenbergen)
Tibetan: thugs nyid (ཐུགས་ཉིད།།), an honorific form for sems nyid (སེམས་ཉིད།) or “spirit” (source: gSungrab website )
Nias: Geheha (or: Eheha). “The word Eheha is known all over Nias, except for the Batu Islands. Eheha means charisma, strength and wisdom possessed only by some nobles. Eheha can be passed down to the eldest son when someone dies, by putting one’s mouth on his dying father’s mouth before he breathes his last breath. Eheha looks like foam or animal fat. If the son is not strong enough he may fall unconscious while receiving his father’s eheha. In the case that the son is still a young boy the eheha can be kept in a tokosa vessel made of gold. The Ono Niha [literally ‘child of human,’ the term by which the original inhabitants of Nias and the Batu Islands call themselves] believed that eheha gives wisdom, skills and charisma and is a very important element in leadership.” (Source: Hummel / Telaumbanua 2007, p. 253)
Many Bantu languages translate Pneûma with a word that originally means “soul,” including Luganda and Haya (both: mwoyo), Ndebele (uMoya), Sotho (Moya). Fang uses Nsísim: “shadow” or “separate soul” (anima separata) (source: Bühlmann 1950, p. 176)
The grammatical gender of the Greek Pneûma is neuter (and the Hebrew ruach has a feminine gender). While many languages either do not have a grammatical gender or have a word for Pneûma that grammatically is masculine, other languages found various ways of dealing with this. (Click or tap here to read more):
The earliest example is Classical Syriac which, like Hebrew, used a term — Ruhä — that was of feminine gender. According to Ashbrook (1993), in early documents the feminine gender was not only used in a grammatical sense but the Spirit was often described with feminine imagery as well. “Around the year 400 [though], a change emerges in our texts. Starting in the fifth century, and almost universally by the sixth, the Spirit is masculine in Syriac writers. Ruhä when referring to wind or spirit continues to follow rules of grammar and to be construed in the feminine; but when referring to the Holy Spirit, it is now construed as masculine, although this does violence to the fabric of the language.” (Source: Ashbrook 1993)
A similar process of ungrammatical usage was attempted in Asháninka. The “Good Spirit of God” required a feminine, inanimate pronoun which was artificially changed to masculine. After a while this was changed back to its true grammatical form with no perceptible difference in the understanding of the Trinity. Will Kindberg (in The Bible Translator 1964, 197f. ) tells that story (click or tap here to read more):
“For the past several years Mr Sylvester Dirks of the Mennonite Brethren Mission and I have been engaged in missionary work with the Asháninka sub-group of the Campa tribe in Peru, and have collaborated on Christian vocabulary items and translation as well as other phases of our missionary activities. For the ‘Holy Spirit’ we are using ‘the Good Spirit of God’. The normal pronominal reference for spirit, whether it be a human spirit or the spirit of a god, is third person feminine inanimate. Long ago, Sylvester and I agreed that we would force the use of the third person masculine animate pronoun to refer to the Holy Spirit, although we recognized it was contrary to the grammatical system of Asháninka. We did this because of a theological bias: the Holy Spirit is referred to in English as masculine, and we think of the Spirit as a masculine member of the Godhead. We ignored the fact that it has a neuter reference in Greek.
“In the Gospel of Mark and also in the book of Acts, my translation consistently uses the third person masculine pronoun to refer to the feminine inanimate spirit. There has been a reaction against this by the people as they hear or read these portions of Scripture, though some of the believers have accepted it when it was explained to them why it had been done.
“This past year while I was continuing working on other portions of Scripture, I was again troubled by the non-grammatical use of the pronominal referent.
“I checked again with some of my colleagues here in Peru and they agreed with me that it might be wise to switch back to the correct grammatical usage. So I checked with Mr Dirks and he did not object to the change.
“Because of the importance of the issue, I also wrote to Dr Eugene Nida and Dr John Beekman for their opinions. They both suggested the use of the grammatically correct forms. The following is a quote from Dr Beekman’s letter:
“‘There is a distinction between animate and inanimate reference in one of the Zapoteco dialects of Mexico. All spirits fall into the inanimate class. The weight of theological considerations led the translators to use the animate form contrary to usage. In consultation, however, it was agreed that it would be preferable not to violate the grammatical pattern especially since the informants felt that the use of the inanimate form did not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit was not a person. The translators are now using the inanimate form to the satisfaction of all of the believers.’
“I have switched the pronominal reference throughout John and it has just been printed. The reaction of the few people with whom I have checked this has been good. The question has been asked: ‘How does having two masculine members and a feminine-inanimate member affect the Asháninka’s idea of a triune God?’
“One day I was talking to my informant (still a relatively untrained believer) about the different gods in which his fellow tribesmen believe. And I said, ‘What does the Bible teach about God? How many are there?’ (Note that I used the unmarked form that might be either singular or plural.) He answered, ‘There is one God’. Then after thinking a minute, he said, ‘There are two—there’s Jesus. Then afterwards he said, ‘There are three— there’s God’s Spirit’. It seems to me he has understood the doctrine of the Trinity about as well as most Christians. For the last few months we have been using a feminine inanimate referent for the Holy Spirit and this has not seemed to hinder his understanding of the Trinity. Time will tell the reaction of the rest of the people.”
In Swahili, the translation of Pneûma tò Hagion is Roho Mtakatifu. Roho, derived from the Semitic / Arabic Rūḥ, should be in the noun class for loan words but to prevent the misunderstanding of Roho as an inanimate object, it is (grammatically incorrectly) used in the first class of nouns which is specifically reserved for people (source: Bühlmann 1950, p. 176). While some Bantu languages use similar strategies, Lamba left Umupasi Uswetelele in the third noun class that is also used for trees and plants, making a grammatically a non-person. But, as C. M. Doke (in The Bible Translator 1958, p. 57ff. ) remarks, “it is [left] to numerous references in the Scriptures to establish that the Holy Spirit is a person, the third person of the Trinity.”
While Swedish used to have three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter), modern Swedish only uses two genders (common [utrum] and neuter). Until the Bibel 2000, “Holy Spirit” was translated as helige Ande which used a masculine adjective and paired it with ande (“Spirit”), which historically could be read as masculine. With the merging of the masculine gender into the common gender it is now translated as the common-gendered heliga ande, matching a more widely-used gender-equal language practice in Swedish. (Source: Mikael Winninge and Sara Rösare)
The following is a stained glass window from ca. 1660 by Gian Lorenzo Bernini. The “Dove of the Holy Spirit” is installed at Saint Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City:
Photo and accompanying text by Wilfredor, hosted by Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication license
Stained glass is not just highly decorative, it’s a medium which has been used to express important religious messages for centuries. Literacy was not widespread in the medieval and Renaissance periods and the Church used stained glass and other artworks to teach the central beliefs of Christianity. In Gothic churches, the windows were filled with extensive narrative scenes in stained glass — like huge and colorful picture storybooks — in which worshipers could ‘read’ the stories of Christ and the saints and learn what was required for their religious salvation. (Source: Victoria and Albert Museum )
.jpg){kind=link}