tetragrammaton, YHWH

The translation of the tetragrammaton (YHWH or יהוה‎) is easily the most often discussed issue in Bible translation. This is exemplified by the fact that there is virtually no translation of the Bible — regardless of language — where the position of the respective translator or translation team on how to translate the name of God into the respective language is not clearly stated in the preface or introduction.

Click or tap here to read about the different ways the tetragrammaton is and has been translated

The literature on this topic is overwhelming, both as far as the meaning of YHWH and the translation of it by itself and in combination with other terms (including Elohim and Adonai). There is no reason or room to rehash those discussions. Aside from various insightful translations of YHWH into various languages (see below), what’s of interest in the context of this tool are official and semi-official statements regarding the translation by Bible translation agencies and churches. These include the 1992 statement by United Bible Societies’ “Names of God” Study Group (see The Bible Translator 1992, p. 403-407 ) or the “Letter to the Bishops’ Conference on ‘The Name of God'” by the Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Discriplina Sacramentorum of 2008 (see here et al.).

In summary, the UBS study group gives six different options on how to translate YHWH: 1) transliterate (some form of “Yahweh” or “Jehovah” if this is an already established term); 2) translate (along the lines of kurios — κύριος in the Septuagint); 3) translate the meaning of YHWH; 4) use a culture-specific name; 5) translate Elohim and YHWH in the same way; or 6) use a combination of any of these options.

The official Catholic directive states that for liturgical purposes YHWH is to be translated as an equivalent of Kurios (“Lord”) unless when appearing in combination with Elohim (“God”) or Adonai (“lord”), in which case it’s to be translated with “God.”

In the following collection of examples, any of the above-mentioned strategies are used.

Use of Typographical Means to Offset the Name of God

A large number of Bible translations in many Western European languages have used a similar strategy to translate YHWH as an equivalent of Kurios or Adonai (“lord” in Greek in Hebrew) but have used either small caps or all caps to denote these occurrences as an equivalent to a proper name. Here are some examples:

  • English: Lord
  • Danish: Herren (In recent editions: Herren and Gud (“God”))
  • Swedish: Herren (traditionally: YHWH — Herren and Elohim — Herren)
  • French: SEIGNEUR (in the Traduction œcuménique de la Bible)
  • German: Herr or Herr (see also the translation by Buber/Rosenzweig below)
  • Dutch: HERE
  • Portuguese: Senhor
  • Welsh: ARGLWYDD
  • Spanish: Señor

None of the European languages have found a “cultural-linguistic equivalent” with the possible exception of Eternal or l’Éternel (see below).

The rendering of the translation of YHWH in bold (and uppercase) characters is for instance used in Guhu-Samane: QOBEROBA (a term of address for a respected person and also connotes “forever”) (for “forever”, see below under Translations of the Name of God) and the upper-casing in Bible translations in several other languages in Papua New Guinea:

In Cebuano (Ang Pulong sa Dios edition, 2010) and Hiligaynon (all versions), Ginoo, a typographical variant of Ginoo (“Lord”) is used. Bible translation consultant Kermit Titrud (SIL): “‘Yahweh’ is too close to Yahwa, their word for ‘Satan.’ We were afraid that in the pulpits readers might misread ‘Yahweh’ and say ‘Yahwa.’ So we went with the tradition found in most English translations. Ginoo for ‘Yahweh’ and Ginoo for ‘adonai.'”

In languages where capitalization is not a typographical option, other options are available and used, such as in Japanese, where the generic term shu 主 for “Lord” is bolded in some translations to offset its meaning (Source: Omanson, p. 17).

In Pattani Malay, the word for “Lord” is underlined: ربي. (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)

A graphical way of representation beyond typography was used by André Chouraqui in his French La Bible hebraique et le Nouveau Testament (publ. 1974-1977) for which he superimposed adonai and Elohim over (the French rendition) of the tetragrammaton:

(Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff.; see also tempt God / put God to the test)

Translations of the Name of God

A translation of YHWH with a rendering of the meaning of “Eternal” was done in English by James Moffatt (between 1926 and 1935) with Eternal, The Voice translation with Eternal One (2012), in French versions as L’ÉTERNEL by J. F. Ostervald in 1904 or l’Éternel by L. Segond (1910-1938, not in more recent revisions) and Zadoc Kahn (1964) (for the French translation, see also LORD of hosts), in Esperanto as “la Eternulo,” and in Obolo as Okumugwem: “The Ever-Living” (source: Enene Enene). In francophone Africa, translations of l’Éternel are widely used, due to the wide use of Segond’s early editions (see above). Examples include Nancere (Nandjéré) with Kumuekerteri, Ngambay (Ngambaï) with Njesigənea̰, Sar with Kɔ́ɔ̄ɓē, Mbay (Mbaï) with Bïraþe, Kim with Bage ɗiŋnedin, or Lélé uses Gojɛnɛkirɛkindiy (verbatim: “who remains for his eyes”). (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)

Similarly and at the same time expanding its meaning, the Nzima translation of 1998 translated YHWH as Ɛdεnkεma, the “Eternal All-Powerful Creator and Sustainer” (Source: David Ekem in The Bible Translator 2005, p. 72ff. ).

“Creator” is also used in Kazakh (Zharatkhan [Жаратқан]), Karakalpak (Zharatkhan [Жаратқан], sometimes in combination with Iyeg [Ийег] — “Master”), and Kirghiz (Zharatkhan [Жаратқан], likewise in combination with “Master” or Ege [Эге]). (Source: David Gray).

Nepali, Bengali, and Hindi are all derived from Sanskrit and have (eventually) all found similar translations of YHWH. In Bengali “God” is translated as Ishwar (ঈশ্বর) (widely used in Hindu scriptures, where it’s used as a title, usually associated with “Siva”) and YHWH as Shodaphrobhu (সদাপ্রভু) — “Eternal Lord”; in Nepali and Newari YHWH is translated as Paramaprabhu (परमप्रभु)– “Supreme Lord”; and Hindi translates YHWH as Phrabu (प्रभु) — “Lord.” In earlier translations all three languages used transliterations of Jehovah or Yahweh. (Source: B. Rai in The Bible Translator 1992, p. 443ff. and Barrick, p. 124).

  • The influential German Jewish translation of Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig (between 1925 and 1961) translates YHWH in Exodus 3:15 with “Ich bin da” (“I exist” or “I am”) and in all other instances with pronouns in small caps (Er, Ihm, Ihn, Ich — “he,” “him,” “his,” “I”).
  • The Jewish orthodox English ArtScroll Tanach translation (publ. 2011) uses Hashem or “The Name”
  • In the Bavarian translation by Sturmibund (publ. 1998), it is translated as Trechtein or “Sovereign, Lord.” “Trechtein” is related to the obsolete English “drighten.” (Source: Zetzsche)
  • In Ge’ez, Tigrinya, and Amharic it is translated with Igziabeher (እግዚአብሔር) or “Ruler/Lord of the Nations/Peoples.” In Ge’ez Igziabeher is used for “God” as well, whereas in Tigrinya and Amharic it is often, but not always used for “God.” In a recent revision by Biblica (see here ), an attempt was made to use Igziabeher exclusively for occurrences of the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Bible, but after strong responses by the Christian community, a compromise was found by using Igziabeher in the first chapter of Genesis and changing it according to the Hebrew text elsewhere. (Source: Zetseat Fekadu)
  • Akan uses “Forever-Owner” (Source: Jacob Loewen, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 401ff. ).
  • Warlpiri uses Kaatu Jukurrarnu (Kaatu is a transcription of “God” and Jukurrarnu means “timelessness” and shares a root with jukurrpa — dreamings) (Source: Stephen Swartz, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. ).
  • The translation of YHWH into Weri with Aniak Tupup or “man of the holy house” intends “to maintain the Jewish practice of not uttering God’s name [with] the use of another vernacular phrase that signals that a ‘taboo’ name is being referred [which] could give a cue that would be recognizable in written or oral communication” (Source: P. King, The Bible Translator 2014, p. 195ff. ).
  • Aruamu translates it as Ikiavɨra Itir God or “Ever Present God” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Idakho-Isukha-Tiriki: Nyasaye Wuvunyali Muno or “God powerful great” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
  • Ruund uses Chinawej, a term that is otherwise used as a response of approval. Anna Lerbak (in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 84ff. ) tells the genesis of this term (click or tap to see an explanation):

    “The name ‘Jehovah’ had been used in some contexts, but I had the feeling that it did not mean much to the people, and when I asked the pastors they all said it didn’t, and worse, it very often confused people, especially in the villages. During the conversation it was suggested that the name Chinawej be used in the place of ‘Jehovah’, and this met with immediate approval. A few days later I was working on a Psalm in which ‘Jehovah’ was used frequently, so I wrote Chinawej in its place and then read the Psalm to them. The response was about like this: “That is it, now people will understand, that is how Chinawej is. The Jews call God ‘Jehovah’, we call Him Chinawej, it is the same God. but we know Him as Chinawej as the Jews know Him as ‘Jehovah’ “. They often call God Chinawej in prayer, it seems to indicate warmth and intimacy.

    The same word is used in two other ways. It is the name of a snake which never attacks human beings. And it is used as a response of approval. When told of something they are pleased to hear, something they find good, just, helpful, generous, they often respond by saying, Chinawej. When they call God Chinawej, it indicates that they think of Him as One Who is good and just and generous towards them. When it was suggested at the committee that we use Chinawej in place of ‘Jehovah’ it was accepted immediately and unanimously.

  • Ebira has Eneyimavara. Eneyimavara was created by merging a praise phrase that was only used for the traditional deity Ohomorihi (see here), that had become the word for the Christian God: ene e yi ma vara or “the one that never changes.” “The translators came to the agreement that this praise name that describes the unchangeableness of God is very close in meaning to the probable meaning of YHWH.” (Source: David O Moomo in Scriptura 88 (2005), p. 151ff. )
  • The Uzbek Bible uses the term Ega (Эга) — “master, owner” in various forms (including Egam / Эгам for “my Owner” or Egamiz / Эгамиз for “our Owner.” (Click or tap to see an explanation):

    Jim Zvara (2019, p. 6) explains: “The Uzbek term ega means owner or master (‘master,’ in the historical context of an owner-slave relationship). By extension, it is natural for an Uzbek to speak to or refer to God as Egam (‘my owner’/’master’). In the Uzbek context to be God’s slave is a positive way of understanding one’s relation to him. It suggests that one is in a dependent and obedient relationship to God. The team felt that this relational connection and what it implies fits well with the concept of YHWH as the God who is in a covenant relationship with his people. In the Uzbek context, the choice of Ega was deemed to be the best balance of natural language with meaningful translation.”

  • The Seediq Bible translation team chose Utux Tmninun (“the weaving god”) for their translation of YHWH. (Click or tap to see a retelling of the process of how that decision was reached):

    “(…) The Seediq team requested that we spend time with them on key terms. They had compiled a list of key terms that they wanted input on, and we went through the list item by item. The most important item was how to deal with the divine name. They had tentatively translated it as Yehoba, transliterated from Jehovah, but they were also aware that this transliteration may not be accurate, and they were keen to explore other options.

    “We explored various alternatives. Were they interested in following the ancient Jewish practice of substituting ‘Lord’ for the divine name? Would capitalising the letters help? Would they be bold enough to use ‘Yahweh,’ following the opinion of most Old Testament scholars who regard this as the correct pronunciation? Was it feasible to adopt a mixed approach in dealing with the divine name (…)? Each option had its advantages as well as disadvantages.

    “In the midst of the discussion, a participant said, ‘Our ancestors, as well as we today, always call God by the term Utux Tmninun. I suggest we use this term.’ The term Utux Tmninun in the Seediq culture means ‘the weaving God.’ In their culture, God is the weaver, the one who weaves life together. All the participants were excited about this proposal. They tried this term with all the composite terms that involve the divine name, and it seemed to work well, so they decided tentatively to adopt this term. After the workshop, the participants went back to their villages and sought feedback from the wider community, and eventually they confirmed the use of the term Utux Tmninun as the rendering of the divine name.

    Translating the divine name as Utux Tmninun, the weaving God, is a creative solution. This term is viewed very positively in the Seediq community. It also correlates well with the concept of God as the creator (Gen. 1-2) and as the weaver who formed our inward parts and knit us together in our mothers’ wombs (Ps. 139:13). It also has the advantage of portraying God beyond the traditional masculine form.

    “Some may argue that since names are usually transliterated, we should do the same with YHWH, most likely pronounced ‘Yahweh.’ Unfortunately, due to the influence of Chinese Union Version for almost one hundred years now, Chinese Christians only know God as Yehehua. Attempts to change the term Yehehua to Yahweh have not been successful. This is a reality that the Seediq Christians have to live with.

    “Others may argue on theological grounds that YHWH is not only the creator, but also the God of the covenant, hence any attempt to substitute another term for YHWH will not do justice to the Hebrew text. In the case of the Seediq translation, there are significant similarities between Utux Tmninun and YHWH, though the terms are not identical. This is a reality translators often have to struggle with. Exact correspondence is hard to come by. Often it is a matter of approximation, give and take. Besides theological considerations, one has to deal with the constraints of past traditions (‘Jehovah,’ in this instance), the biblical cultures and one’s own culture, and audience acceptance. Hopefully, by using Utux Tmninun for YHWH, the Seediq term will be transformed and take on the aspect of the covenant God as well.” (Source: Yu Suee Yan, The Bible Translator 2015, p. 316ff. )

  • In Tok Pisin it is translated as Bikpela: “the Big One” or “the Great One.” (See: Norm Mundhenk in The Bible Translator 1985, p. 442ff. See also under LORD God / Lord God)
  • In Elhomwe it is translated as Apwiya, which also means “uncle” or “master” (source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Amele uses Tibud, the term for an important nature god, e.g., Amel tibud “lightning god,” Mim tibud “earthquake god.” (Source: John Roberts)
  • Silimo has ’gain Onuk Logo a’ge or “the Chief who is above all others” (source: Buzz and Myrna Maxey )
  • Nyankore: Nyakubaho or “the one who is from within itself” (source: Bühlmann 1950, p. 146)
  • ‘One local dialect of Carpathian Romani: Drágon Dél or “Beloved/Dear God.” In most Romani dialects, the word Rai (Lord/Boss/landlord/shopkeeper) is sort-of acceptable, but in one particular subgroup of Carpathian Romani they said it only meant shopkeeper and ‘everyone knows that [majority term for YHWH] means God, and why can’t we translate it that way?’ We tried to explain, but they weren’t keen on anything but Dél (‘God’). We eventually compromised with Drágon Dél, a common expression for YHWH, and Dél for Elohim, but it took quite a lot of convincing them that there was any theological point there.
  • For the interconessional translation into Chichewa (publ. 1999) the term Chauta (“Great-One-of-the-Bow”) was chosen for YHWH (Click or tap to see the detailed story):

    “The name Chauta, literally ‘Great-One-of-the-Bow’, i.e. [is] either the rainbow (descriptively termed uta-wa-Leza ‘the-bow-of-God’) or, less likely, the hunter’s bow. And yet Chauta was also distinct from Mulungu [“God”] in that it has reference to the specific tribal deity of the Chewa people — the God who ‘owns’ yet also ‘belongs to’ them — and hence it carries additional positive emotive overtones. Although research indicated that in an ancient traditional setting, Chauta too was probably associated with the indigenous ancestral rain cult, in the Christian era it has been progressively generalized to encompass virtually all religious contexts in which God may be either appealed to, proclaimed, or praised. After prolonged deliberation, therefore, the translation committee determined Chauta to be the closest functional equivalent to YHWH of the Hebrew Scriptures. The choice of this name is not without its difficulties, however, and these were carefully considered by the Chewa committee. For example, the use of a more specific local term, as opposed to the generic Mulungu, carries a greater likelihood of bringing along with it certain senses, connotations, and situations that were (and no doubt still are) associated with the indigenous, pre-Christian system of worship. If these happened to remain strong in any contemporary sacred setting, then of course the dangers connected with conceptual syncretism might well arise. In the case of Chauta, however, it appeared that the process of positive Christian contextualization had already reached an advanced stage, that is, judging from the widespread use of this name in all aspects of religious life and practice. A more scholarly argument against Chauta takes the position that there is too great a female component associated with this term because it was traditionally applied (by figurative metonymy) to refer also to the ritual ‘wife of God’, i.e. the chief officiant at a traditional rain shrine and worship sanctuary. However, this usage seems to be quite remote, and most people questioned do not even recognize the connection anymore. Besides, in a matrilineal society such as the Chewa, it does not seem inappropriate to have this aspect of meaning lying in the background, particularly since it is not completely foreign to the notion of God in the Bible (cf. Ps. 36:7; 73:15; Isa. 49:14-15; Mt. 23:37). In terms of ‘connotative fit’ or emotive identification and appeal, there can be little doubt that the name Chauta is by far the closest natural equivalent to YHWH in the contemporary Chewa cultural and religious environment. This aspect of meaning was probably also utmost from the ancient Jewish perspective as well; in other words, “for them the associated meaning of this special name [YHWH], in terms of their history and culture, far outweighed any meaning it may have suggested because of its form or derivation”. To be sure, this ‘new’ divine name — that is, new as far as the Scriptures are concerned — may take some getting used to, especially in the formal setting of public worship. But this is not a foreign god whom we are talking about; rather, he is certainly by now regarded as the national deity of the Chewa nation. Chauta is the great God who for one reason or another ‘did not make himself known to them by his holy name, the LORD’ (Exod. 6:3), that is, in the prior translations of his Word into Chewa. He is, however, and always has been “a God who saves … the LORD (Chauta), our Lord, who rescues us from death” (Ps. 68:20, Good News Bible)!” (Source: Wendland 1998, 120f.; see also The Bible Translator 1992, 430ff. )

Transliteration of YHWH

A 12th century reading of the Masoretic vowel points around יהוה‎ (יְהֹוָה) was interpreted to be pronounced as Yehowah from which Iehouah and Jehovah were derived. This was reflected in the English versions of Tyndale (publ. 1530) and the Geneva Bible (significantly based on Tyndale and publ. in 1560) and again the King James Version (Authorized Version) (publ. 1611) which all used Iehouah or Jehovah in 7 different verses in the Old Testament. The translators and editors of the American Standard Version (publ. 1901), a review of the King James Version used Jehovah for all appearances of the tetragrammaton something that the Spanish Reina-Valera (publ. 1602) had already done as well.

In English versions, Yahweh as a transliteration of the tetragrammaton is used by the Catholic Jerusalem Bible (publ. 1966), the Protestant Holman Christian Standard Bible (publ. 2004) and the Legacy Standard Bible (publ. 2021). The Catholic translation by Knox (publ. 1949) occasionally uses Javé, “to make it a Latin name, to match all the other names in the Old Testament.” (Source Knox 1949, p. 80)

Mandinka for instance uses Yawe for YHWH. “The use of Yawe for YHWH is good and may be a trendsetter in this part of Africa.” (Source: Rob Koops)

In a group of related languages in another part of Africa an interesting development from a transliteration to a indigenous translation can be shown: In the Nandi Bible (1938) Jehovah was used as a translation for YHWH. Kamuktaindet (“The Powerful One”) was used as a translation for Elohim (“God”). This was taken over by a translation into the macrolanguage Kalenjin (1969) (intended to include the closely related Keiyo, Kipsigis, Markweeta, Nandi, Okiek, Sabaot, Terik, and Tugen). Sabaot, Markweeta, Tugen and Okiek later wanted there own translations. Both Sabaot and Markweeta use the indigenous word for “Creator” (Yēyiin in Sabaot and Iriin in Markweeta) to translate Elohim and YHWH of the Old Testament and Theos of the New Testament. The Kalenjin Bible has recently been revised to cater to Keiyo, Kipsigis, Nandi and Terik, and this revision has completely dropped Jehovah in favour of Kamuktaindet. (Source: Iver Larsen)

Early translations into Gilbertese faced a problem when transliterating “Jehovah” (a form of “Jehovah” was first used in Spanish Bible translations in 1569 and 1602): “There are only thirteen letters in the Kiribati alphabet: A, E, I, O, U, M, N, NG, B, K, R, T (pronounced [s] when followed by ‘i’), W For instance, ‘Jehovah’ is rendered Iehova, but Kiribati speakers can only pronounce it as ‘Iowa,’ since the phonemes [h] and [v] do not exist in Kiribati.” (source: Joseph Hong, The Bible Translator 1994, p. 329ff. .)

Other transliterations include Yoba (Kovai), Iaue (Mussau-Emira), Jawe (Waskia), Iave (Maiadomu), Iawe (Waboda) (source: P. King, The Bible Translator 2014, p. 194ff. ), Yawi (Western Tawbuid, Eastern Tawbuid), or Yihowah (Kapingamarangi).

In a recent edition of a Thai translation (Thai Standard Version, publ. 2011) a combination of translation and transliteration is used: phra’ ya(h)we (h) (พระยาห์เวห์) (“Divine Yawe”). (Source: Stephen Pattemore)

In Nyarafolo Senoufo the transliteration is Yewe which also means “the being one” or “he that is.” David DeGraaf (in: Notes on Translation 3/1999, p. 34ff.) explains: “Since it is widely recognized that the vowels of the name are uncertain, another possible transliteration is Yewe. This proposal is in accord with the Nyarafolo rules of vowel harmony and is thus open to being understood as a normal nominalization in the language. Second, Yewe is exactly the word that would be formed by nominalizing the verb ‘to be’ in the class that includes sentient beings. Thus, Yewe can be understood as ‘the being one’ or ‘he that is’. This solution accords well with YHWH’s self-revelation to Moses in Exodus 3:14, ‘I am who I am.'”

In the Literary and Mandarin Chinese (Protestant) tradition the transliteration of “Jehovah” is historically deeply rooted, even though there are also some historical burdens (Click or tap to see more details):

“YHWH” is rendered in the Chinese Union Version — the most widely used Bible translation in China—as well as most other Chinese Bible translations as yehehua 耶和華. According to Chinese naming conventions, yehehua could be interpreted as Ye Hehua, in which Ye would be the family name and Hehua — “harmonic and radiant” — the given name. In the same manner, Ye would be the family name of Jesus (transliterated as yesu 耶穌) and Su would be the given name. Because in China the children inherit the family name from the father, the sonship of Jesus to God the Father, yehehua, would be illustrated through this. Though this line of argumentation sounds theologically unsound, it is indeed used effectively in the Chinese church.” (see Wright 1953, p. 298, see also Jesus).

“Ye 耶, an interrogative particle in classical Chinese, is part of the same phonetic series as ye 爺, which gives it a certain exchangeability. Ye 爺 carries the meaning “father” or is used as an honorable form of address. The choice of the first Bible translators to use the transliteration yehehua 爺火華 for Jehovah had a remarkable and sobering influence on the history of the 19th century in China by possibly helping to shape the fatal Taiping ideology, a rebellion that ended up costing an estimated 20 million lives.

“The founder of the Taiping rebellion, Hong Xiuquan, was given a tract (…) [that he used to] interpret a nervous breakdown he had had in 1837 as his “call” to be the “Messiah.” This “vision” that Hong experienced is likely to have had a direct correlation with the name of “God” in that tract. Shen yehuohua 神爺火華 (directly translated: ‘God (or: spirit); old man (or: father); fire; bright)” was the term that was used in that tract for ‘God Jehovah,’ but this was not indicated as a (in its second part) transliteration of a proper name. In his vision, Hong saw ‘a man venerable in years (corresponding with ye), with golden (corresponding with huo and hua) beard and dressed in a black robe,’ an image likely to have been inspired by a direct translation from that name for ‘God,’ especially as it appeared at the beginning of the tract. That this term was considered to be a term of some relevance to the Taiping ideology is demonstrated by the fact that both yehuohua 爺火華 as the personal name of God and ye 爺 as “God the Father” later appeared in Taiping writings.” (Source: Zetzsche in Malek 2002, p. 141ff.)

In American Sign Language it is translated with a sign that combines the letter Y and a sign that points up and is similar to the sign for “God.” (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)


“YHWH” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor

In British Sign Language is is translated with a sign that combines the signs for “God” and “name” and the finger-spelling of Y-H-W-H. (Source: Anna Smith)


“YHWH” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)

Japanese Sign Language combines the sign for “Lord” with “exist” to make a name sign that technically means “the existent one,” but is close enough to “Lord” that it isn’t too jarring for people in the church who expect to see “Lord” in certain contexts (source: Mark Penner). For a Japanese Sign Language explanation, see here.


“YHWH” in Japanese Sign Language, source: 日本手話訳聖書を

For further reading on the translation of YHWH, see Rosin 1956, p. 89-125 and Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff.

See also Lord, God, and Exod. 3:14-15.

Translation commentary on Genesis 1:2

The Hebrew of this verse begins with the frequently used connecting marker, the consonant waw, usually translated “and.” This marker serves to connect noun phrases as well as noun and verb clauses and whole sentences. Its translation here will depend on the way verse 1 has been dealt with. If “God created…” has been translated as a subordinate time clause, then verse 2 forms the main clause of the sentence, and the connecting marker is not required as a separate element. See Good News Translation. On the other hand, if verse 1 is translated as an independent sentence that serves as a general heading for the entire story, then verse 2 is the beginning of the story, and a rendering of the connecting marker is required that is appropriate for such a beginning. In English Revised Standard Version and Revised English Bible are examples of translations that do not represent the marker, while New Jerusalem Bible and New International Version render it by “Now…,” which is quite natural in this context. In such cases “Now” does not mean “at the present time” but is an English idiomatic way of introducing a new statement. See also comments under and darkness in this verse.

The earth was without form …: verse 2 picks up the word earth from Gen 1.1. “Heaven” is not mentioned again until verse 8, in which the “firmament” is named. The picture is of the entire world, not just dry earth. The Hebrew verb translated was refers to the time when God began his work of creation. Was does not mean that the earth remained in this shapeless state for a long time; nor does it mean that it became such after being something else earlier. If the translator chooses to make verse 1 a dependent clause, was or its equivalent will serve as the verb in the main clause. For example, “At the time when God began to create, the earth was….” If verse 1 is handled as an independent sentence, this verb still refers to the event of creation, and the verb selected should express something like “At that time the earth was…” or “At the beginning of creation the earth had no form….”

Without form and void translates the Hebrew tohu wa bohu, which has been the subject of numerous discussions. The first element, tohu, occurs some twenty times in the Old Testament, while bohu is found only three times, and in each of these it is linked with tohu. Bohu therefore is not an independent word but rather a sound imitation that is sometimes added to the first word. Tohu, which carries the basic meaning, is used to describe the desert in Deut 32.10; Job 6.18; 12.24; Psa 107.40. The term is likewise used to refer to God’s judgments, in which order is turned to chaos or waste in Isa 24.10, and with the same sense the double expression is used in Isa 34.11 and Jer 4.23.

The idea of the expression is that at the beginning the earth was a chaotic waste. In the first three days of creation, God is to give the earth a recognizable shape. Modern translations handle this expression in two main ways:
(a) as two separate descriptive terms connected by “and”; for example, “void and vacant” (Moffatt), “unformed and void” (New International Version), “waste and gloomy” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch);
(b) as a main word with an added descriptive term; for example, “a great emptiness” (Bible en français courant), “formless void” (New Jerusalem Bible), “formless wasteland” (New American Bible), “formless waste” (Anchor Bible), and “had no form” (Biblia Dios Habla Hoy).

Some languages, particularly in Africa, use repeated syllables to describe certain conditions much the way adjectives and adverbs do. Translators in those languages may find that these so-called ideophones are used sometimes to describe an empty and barren place. In other languages it may be necessary to express this thought with a double expression such as in Good News Translation “formless and desolate,” or else “shapeless and empty.” In some languages it may be more natural to use a clause and say, for example, “had yet no real shape and was still empty,” or as a simile “The earth had not yet been set in order and was like a shapeless swamp.” Three examples of descriptive expressions used in recent translations are “the world was different altogether; it was empty without anything in it,” “The earth was not like we see it now. No. It was empty and different altogether,” and “the earth had no backbone.”

And darkness was upon …: Hebrew includes the connective waw “and” here; however, translators should pay particular attention to the way in which these clauses and sentences are joined, so as not to make their language sound unnecessarily like Hebrew. Revised Standard Version, which most often translates these connectives literally, produces an abnormally disjointed flow of discourse in English.

Darkness in this context is associated in sense with the “formless waste” in the preceding clause. The same word is used in Isa 45.19, in which it is associated with chaos, tohu. In Psa 88.6 darkness describes Sheol, the world of the dead, and in Psa 44.19 it is associated with the place of jackals, the desert. Darkness therefore refers to the presence of chaos and the lack of order that existed at the time when God began to create. Was is supplied by Revised Standard Version to make acceptable English.

In languages in which there are words for degrees of darkness, the darkest of darkness should be used. Note Good News Translation “total darkness.” Extreme darkness is sometimes referred to as “a moonless night,” and so you may find it possible to say “It was dark as a moonless night.”

Darkness is understood as the complete absence of light, and in translation it may not be possible to say that darkness was upon something. It may be necessary, therefore, to say, for example, “The seas were in total darkness” or “Where the deep seas were, everything was completely dark.” One common rendering is “Darkness covered over the great water.”

The face of the deep refers to the surface of the deep waters upon which the earth is said to rest later on in Gen 7.11; 8.2; 49.25. Some translations take the deep to refer to a deep place; for example, Moffatt, New English Bible, and Traduction oecuménique de la Bible have “abyss.” However, the sense is more likely to be the deep waters of the unformed or surging oceans. Therefore Good News Translation translates “raging ocean,” Bible en français courant “primitive ocean,” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “floods,” and Biblia Dios Habla Hoy “deep sea.” Good News Translation has restructured the last part of verse 2 so as to make a passive clause with the emphasis on the “raging ocean.”

Face of the deep may sometimes be translated “the big seas,” “the deep oceans,” or “the deep waters.” In languages in which very large bodies of water are unknown, it may be necessary to speak of the “the big rivers” or “the big lakes.”

The Spirit of God translates the Hebrew ruach ʾelohim; as the Good News Translation footnote shows, this phrase can be translated as “the power of God,” “a wind from God,” or “an awesome wind.” Some see it necessary to translate as Spirit of God, as they interpret this to mean the Holy Spirit. However, this is to impose New Testament thought on the Old Testament usage. The rendering “spirit of God” (Revised English Bible, Moffatt) may be taken in the sense of the person of God, based on parallel expressions such as “spirit of Zerubbabel” (Hag 1.14); this is just another way of speaking of Zerubbabel, and so “spirit of God” can be taken to mean the same as “God.” The translation “wind” takes ruach in another of its common meanings. In “mighty wind” (New English Bible) ʾelohim is used not as a noun but as a descriptive term with the sense of “powerful, awesome.” In a similar usage in Gen 23.6, the Hittites speak of Abraham as nasiʾ ʾelohim “mighty prince.” See also Gen 30.8; Exo 9.28 (“[mighty] thunders”); Jonah 3.3 (“exceedingly great city”). In the expression “wind from God” (New Jerusalem Bible), ʾelohim is understood as the one who causes the wind.

All of these renderings are possible. However, you should consider certain factors in deciding which to use. If you are translating into a language in which many speakers have access to a major language Bible, it may be desirable to follow the usage of that translation. In any event it is advisable to offer one or more alternatives in a footnote. Translators are free to follow any of the suggestions supported above. In some languages it is difficult to express “spirit of God,” since God is thought of normally as a spiritual being already, without adding this word. In such cases it may be clearer to speak of “a mighty wind,” “power of God,” “wind coming from God,” or simply “God.”

Was moving over the face of the waters: the word translated was moving is sometimes rendered “brooded,” suggesting a parallel with other ancient stories of creation, in which a bird hatches an egg which is the world. However, the same root is used in Deut 32.11 of eagles “hovering, fluttering” over their young, and according to Anchor Bible the same root occurs in Ugaritic meaning “to be in movement.” Accordingly the picture is that of the spirit of God, or a wind from God, “sweeping, flying, moving” over the waters. Moving is a general word in English that does not suggest the particular kind of movement likely to be involved here. If the translator has used something like “wind from God” in the previous clause, an appropriate verb must be used here, which in English may be “swept, blew, raged.” One translation expresses the sense like this: “The spirit of God was continually going and coming above the water.”

Face of the waters is equivalent in meaning to face of the deep, both referring to the surface of the stormy and wild oceans that covered the world.

Quoted with permission from Reyburn, William D. and Fry, Euan McG. A Handbook on Genesis. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

For the concept of “darkness” see also John Roberts’ Biblical Cosmology: The Implications for Bible Translation in Journal of Translation 2013/2, p. 1ff .

Translation commentary on Genesis 1:5

God called the light Day brings us to the naming step. Called means “gave it the name, named it, called it by the name of.” Some languages distinguish between day as referring to a twenty-four hour period, and “daytime” referring to the period of daylight. Here “daytime” is more appropriate. God now takes control of darkness by making it serve for the nighttime. In languages in which capital letters and quotation marks are not used to show that “day” and “night” are to be taken as names, it is sometimes possible to say, for example, “God gave the light the name day, and the darkness the name night.” If it is necessary to shift to a direct quotation, you may say, for example, “God said to the light, ‘Your name is day,’ and to the darkness, ‘Your name is night.’ ” In any case capitals and quotation marks do not convey anything to the many people who hear the text rather than reading it for themselves, and so the meaning should be expressed clearly without depending on those devices.

Some languages face a special problem at this point, because they use the same term for “light” and “day,” and the same term for “darkness” and “night.” So a literal rendering of what they would get here is “God gave the light the name light, and the darkness the name darkness.” For some people this is quite self-evident and natural; but for others it is senseless to talk like this, and restructuring will be required to make it acceptable. For example, it may be possible to say “When that light came then for the first time, God gave it its name” or “That light didn’t have any name then, so God called it ‘light.’ ”

And there was evening and there was morning, one day: this renders the Hebrew literally, but it is less than clear because it is a rhetorical refrain. It sounds in part like the Jewish twenty-four-hour day, which was from sunset to sunset (Lev 23.32). However, the Jewish day did not end in the morning. We may therefore understand morning to mean “the following period of daylight.” Light has just been created and separated from the darkness, and the order reflected in the refrain is darkness first and then the coming of the created light. The author’s purpose of praising God for his creative acts is thus expressed by means of this poetic device, not only here but at the end of verses 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31.

Translators have used various ways to render this rhetorical expression. Translations of the formal type, such as Revised Standard Version, follow the Hebrew literally. Good News Translation, on the other hand, adjusts the expression by using two verbs: “Evening passed and morning came—that was the first day.” Biblia Dios Habla Hoy translates the thought but does not retain in its text the succession of evening and morning: “In this way the first day was completed.” This version gives the literal form in a footnote and says “A Hebrew form expressing the idea of one complete day.”

If the translator wishes to retain the succession of evening followed by morning as marking a day, it may be possible to say, for example, “The first day was completed when the night passed and morning came” or “The night was followed by the daylight, and that was the first day.” On the other hand translators in some languages may prefer to adapt the model of Biblia Dios Habla Hoy and, immediately after “and darkness he called Night,” say “That was the first day of creation” or “And so the first day ended.” One translation that follows this approach says “And that day finished. It was the first day of the world.” If a footnote is considered desirable, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy gives a satisfactory model: “This is the Hebrew way of expressing the idea of a complete day.”

One day translates the Hebrew literally. Some interpret day to refer to an indefinite period of time, but there is nothing in the context that requires the Hebrew term for day to be taken as other than an ordinary day. All the other days of creation are described by numbers that indicate their place in order or sequence: second, third, fourth, and so on. The author’s purpose is clearly to explain that the seventh day Sabbath has its origin in creation.

In some languages “the first day” will be placed before “and there was evening….” The first of a series of time periods is often expressed in the same way as the first of a series of objects; for example, “the day in front,” “the head day,” “the day that goes first.”

Quoted with permission from Reyburn, William D. and Fry, Euan McG. A Handbook on Genesis. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

For the concepts of “Day” and “Night, see also John Roberts’ Biblical Cosmology: The Implications for Bible Translation in Journal of Translation 2013/2, p. 1ff .

Translation commentary on Genesis 1:6 - 1:7

The second day of creation begins with verse 6.

And God said: see verse 3. Since this is the beginning of a new paragraph or section of the narrated report, many languages will require the appropriate marker for a new major section at this point, such as “Next…,” “After that…,” or “Having created the light….” To express the fact that God was giving a series of commands, some translations say “Then God spoke again, and he said….”

Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters is the first command of the second day. For Let there be see comments on verse 3. Firmament translates a Hebrew word used also in Psa 19.1, where it is in parallel with “heavens.” In Ezek 1.22 the same Hebrew word is translated “dome” by Good News Translation. As used in Ezek 6.11; 25.6, the related verb in Hebrew means “to stamp with the feet,” and in Exo 39.3 it means “to hammer out, beat flat” with reference to hammering or flattening metal into sheets. The thought is that the firmament is like a hammered sheet of metal that covers the overhead space from horizon to horizon, something like a dome or inverted bowl. Something of this idea is expressed in Job 37.18. This covering dome is commanded to appear in the midst of the waters, just as the light was commanded to appear in the presence of pre-existing darkness. The dome of the sky is to come into existence between the upper waters and the lower waters, as is made clear in Gen 1.7. In verse 8 the firmament is named “Heaven.”

In many languages it is difficult to express the idea of a dome or vault of the sky. However, in some languages the arched dome of the sky is called the “hide,” or “skin of the sky,” and in some languages spoken in jungle areas, it is referred to as the “sky jungle clearing.” You may find it necessary to use an image that will illustrate the thought. For example, you may be able to say “Now the heavens should be like an inverted pan,” “Let the sky be like an inverted bowl over the water,” or “Sky, you must be like a tent stretched across the water.” Two suggestions from translations in Pacific languages are “There must be something like a roof, to…,” and “A fence [or, wall] must come [or, appear], to fence off the water….”

And let it separate the waters from the waters is the second command. Here the command is that the dome or vault of the sky is to hold back the water above it from the water beneath it. Separate is the same word used in 1.4. Here the separation is a dividing of the waters above from the waters below, so that space exists between them. That space is the area under the dome. In Genesis 7 the flood is described as water bursting forth from the deep and rain coming down from the “windows of heaven,” which refers to openings in the arched dome of the sky. See also 2 Kgs 7.2, 19; Psa 148.4, for further examples of this view of the heavens. The command that the firmament … separate the waters from the waters may sometimes be expressed “and the skin of the sky should now keep the waters apart” or “and let the plate of the sky divide the water above from the water below.” One translation has “… divide the water, so that half of the water will stay above it, and half will stay below it.”

A literal rendering of the Hebrew, such as that found in Revised Standard Version, will not help the reader to grasp much of the picture. Even in a translation like Good News Translation, it may be advisable to provide the reader with cross references, an illustration, or a more detailed description in a footnote or introduction to the book. One possible illustration is that on page 27.

Note that Good News Translation has brought forward the words “… and it was done” from verse 7 as the completion of the command, and has combined the two verse numbers. It will be noticed that this statement also occurs in verses 9, 11, 15, and 24, and in each case it follows immediately after the command. Good News Translation has also translated in the midst of the waters, not as a location for the dome, but in terms of purpose, “to divide the water.” The second command let it separate … is rendered in Good News Translation as a second purpose: “and to keep it [the water] in two separate places.” This provides translators with a clearer model to follow.

And God made the firmament, verse 7, is the first part of the action or execution of the command.

And separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament expresses the action related to the second phase of the command.

And it was so: as is pointed out above, this is shifted forward in Good News Translation so that the statement of completion accompanies the command, as it does in each of its other occurrences. This expression of completion may be rendered, for example, “and that is the way it happened” or “and it happened as God commanded it.” See also comments on Gen 1.3. If the translator shifts this expression forward to the end of the commands in verse 6, then the numbers should be combined, as in Good News Translation.

Quoted with permission from Reyburn, William D. and Fry, Euan McG. A Handbook on Genesis. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

For the concepts of “waters above” and “waters below,” see also John Roberts’ Biblical Cosmology: The Implications for Bible Translation in Journal of Translation 2013/2, p. 1ff .

Translation commentary on Genesis 1:14

Verses 14-19 describe events of the fourth day with the creation of the sun, moon, and stars; however, the words “sun” and “moon” are avoided.

And God said: see Gen 1.3 and Gen 1.6.

Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens: lights translates a word meaning “lamps,” and so refers to objects that produce or give off light. Firmament is as in verses 6-7, and so the expression firmament of the heavens refers to the dome or vault in those verses, which holds back the waters above it.

In some languages the word for lights as objects that produce light will be different from the term “light” as it is used in Gen 1.3. If a word for lights meaning sources of light is lacking, it may be necessary to say, for example, “things that make light,” “objects that give off light,” or “things that shine.” In some languages the word for “lamps” may be used, as it is in Hebrew.

The first command to the lights is to separate the day from the night. Separate is as in 1.4, where light was created and, as a result of the separation of light from darkness, gave rise to day and night.

In some languages it will be necessary to adjust the expression separate the day from the night, since lights may not be used in this way. However, you may find it possible to say, for example, “to make daytime brighter than nighttime,” “some to shine during the day, and some to shine during the night,” or “to mark off day and night.”

The second command is let them be for signs and for seasons …. Signs is the noun form of a verb meaning “to mark, sign, describe.” It is used in Gen 9.12-13 referring to the rainbow as a sign of the covenant. Seasons translates a word derived from a term meaning “to fix, appoint times.” The reference is not mainly to the seasons of the year but rather to fixed times for carrying out a human activity such as the stages of the agricultural cycle or festive celebrations. According to Anchor Bible signs and seasons should not be understood as two separate nouns but rather as a clause in which signs explains what follows; for example, “they will serve as signs for fixed times.” Anchor Bible translates “Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years.” This will be a good model for many languages; in fact for some languages the same expression may also be used in the first part of the verse to translate “separate the day from the night.” One translation, for example, says “Lights must appear in the sky, to mark off day and night, and to mark days and years and all the special times of the year.”

Good News Translation takes seasons to refer to “religious festivals” so that the purpose of the lights in the sky is to “show the time when days, years, and religious festivals begin.” Good News Translation has placed the more general days and years before “religious festivals.” Moffatt says “sacred seasons,” and Bible en français courant translates “that they serve to determine festival [days], as well as the days and the years of the calendar.” In place of “religious festivals” Biblia Dios Habla Hoy is more general with “special dates.”

Let them may require repeating lights, that is, “The lights must serve as a means…” or “The lights are to be the way to tell when….” For seasons it is advisable to translate in terms of “festival occasions,” “fixed celebrations,” or “fixed dates and times.” In some languages these may be referred to as “eating and remembering times,” “days for joining people together,” or “days everyone celebrates together.” “Sacred festivals” may sometimes be translated “special worship days” or “special times for worshiping God.”

Quoted with permission from Reyburn, William D. and Fry, Euan McG. A Handbook on Genesis. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

For an article about the problems on the translation of moed (מוֹעֵד) in this verse, see John Roberts’ The Anachronism of môʿăḏîm ‘appointed times’ in Gen 1.14 .