The Greek term that is translated in English as “bread” or “loaf” is translated in Samo, it is translated as “Sago,” which serves “like ‘bread’ for the Hebrews, as a generic for food in the Samo language. It is a near-perfect metonymy that has all the semantic elements necessary for effective communication.” (Source: Daniel Shaw in Scriptura 96/2007, p. 501ff.)
In Chol it is translated as waj, the equivalent of a tortilla. (Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight)
John Beekman (in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 180f. ) explains: “The word ‘bread’ in Scripture primarily occurs as either a specific term for bread (including the Lord’s Supper), or as a generic term for food. It is not surprising, however, the some aboriginal groups use something other than bread as the staff of life. The Chols, with their cultural focus in the cultivation of corn, use waj, a type of thin corn flake. Since a meal is not complete without this main item of food, the term has been extended to include any other foods which may be served along with waj. While bread is known to them, its use is limited to a few occasions during the year when it functions as a dessert. In translating this term in the Chol New Testament, consistent use has been made of the word waj whenever the function of bread as a basic food was in focus. John 6:35, “I am the bread of life,” was thus translated with this word. If the word for bread had been used, it was feared that the Chol would compare Christ to the desirable, but not absolutely necessary, dessert.”
Robert Bascom adds his thoughts to this in relation to other Mayan languages (in Omanson 2001, p. 260): “In many Mayan languages, ‘bread’ can be translated waj or kaxlan waj. The first term literally means anything made from corn meal, while the second term literally means ‘foreigner’s waj,’ and refers to the local wheat-based sweet breads which are so popular within the broader European-influenced culture of the region. On the one hand, waj would be a better dynamic equivalent in cases where ‘bread’ meant ‘food,’ but in cases where the focus is literal or the reference well-known, kaxlan waj would preserve a flour-based meaning (though in biblical times barley was more in use than wheat) and not insert corn into a time and place where it does not belong. On the other hand kaxlan waj is not the staff of life, but refers to a local delicacy. In cases such as these, it is even tempting to suggest borrowing pan, the Spanish word for ‘bread,’ but native speakers might respond that borrowing a foreign word is not necessary since both waj and kaxlan waj are native terms that cover the meaning (though in this case, perhaps not all that well).”
Following are a number of back-translations of 1 Corinthians 11:27:
Uma: “That’s why I say to you: people who eat the bread and drink the wine of the Lord’s with behavior that is not fitting, they are wrong, for it is like they have not paid-attention-to/valued the Lord’s body and blood that this custom stands-for/is-the-meaning-of.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks from the glass for remembering Isa Almasi but his conduct is not fitting, na, that person sins because he does not respect the body of Almasi and his blood.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And if someone eats this bread of the Lord and drinks this drink of His, and he does not place in his breath what is the true meaning of this, he has sinned against our Lord because he had not respected the body and the blood of our Lord.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “That is the reason that if someone joins in eating-together from the bread and drinking-together from what is in the cup and he doesn’t think-of/remember its proper use, he sins against the Lord because he despises/looks-down-on his body and his blood.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Therefore whoever copies the not good ways of some there when eating and drinking this remembrance, it really is not fitting for the far-from-ordinary significance of it. If they do like that, the judgment on them really will be like the judgment passed on those who killed the Lord.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “And now, whoever does not respect the Holy Supper when he eats it is committing sin. Because he is not respecting the Lord whose blood flowed out when he died for the people.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
The Hebrew adonai in the Old Testament typically refers to God. The shorter adon (and in two cases in the book of Daniel the Aramaic mare [מָרֵא]) is also used to refer to God but more often for concepts like “master,” “owner,” etc. In English Bible translations all of those are translated with “Lord” if they refer to God.
In English Old Testament translations, as in Old Testament translations in many other languages, the use of Lord (or an equivalent term in other languages) is not to be confused with Lord (or the equivalent term with a different typographical display for other languages). While the former translates adonai, adon and mare, the latter is a translation for the tetragrammaton (YHWH) or the Name of God. See tetragrammaton (YHWH) and the article by Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff. for more information.
In the New Testament, the Greek term kurios has at least four different kinds of use:
referring to “God,” especially in Old Testament quotations,
meaning “master” or “owner,” especially in parables, etc.,
as a form of address (see for instance John 4:11: “Sir, you have no bucket”),
or, most often, referring to Jesus
In the first and fourth case, it is also translated as “Lord” in English.
Most languages naturally don’t have one word that covers all these meanings. According to Bratcher / Nida, “the alternatives are usually (1) a term which is an honorific title of respect for a high-ranking person and (2) a word meaning ‘boss’, ‘master’, or ‘chief.’ (…) and on the whole it has generally seemed better to employ a word of the second category, in order to emphasize the immediate personal relationship, and then by context to build into the word the prestigeful character, since its very association with Jesus Christ will tend to accomplish this purpose.”
When looking at the following list of back-translations of the terms that translators in the different languages have used for both kurios and adonai to refer to God and Jesus respectively, it might be helpful for English readers to recall the etymology of the English “Lord.” While this term might have gained an exalted meaning in the understanding of many, it actually comes from hlaford or “loaf-ward,” referring to the lord of the castle who was the keeper of the bread (source: Rosin 1956, p. 121).
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight
Following are some of the solutions that don’t rely on a different typographical display (see above):
Iyansi: Mwol. Mwol is traditionally used for the “chief of a group of communities and villages” with legal, temporal, and spiritual authority (versus the “mfum [the term used in other Bantu languages] which is used for the chief of one community of people in one village”). Mwol is also used for twins who are “treated as special children, highly honored, and taken care of like kings and queens.” (Source: Kividi Kikama in Greed / Kruger, p. 396ff.)
Binumarien: Karaambaia: “fight-leader” (Source: Oates 1995, p. 255)
Warlpiri: Warlaljamarri (owner or possessor of something — for more information tap or click here)
We have come to rely on another term which emphasizes God’s essential nature as YHWH, namely jukurrarnu (see tetragrammaton (YHWH)). This word is built on the same root jukurr– as is jukurrpa, ‘dreaming.’ Its basic meaning is ‘timelessness’ and it is used to describe physical features of the land which are viewed as always being there. Some speakers view jukurrarnu in terms of ‘history.’ In all Genesis references to YHWH we have used Kaatu Jukurrarnu. In all Mark passages where kurios refers to God and not specifically to Christ we have also used Kaatu Jukurrarnu.
New Testament references to Christ as kurios are handled differently. At one stage we experimented with the term Watirirririrri which refers to a ceremonial boss of highest rank who has the authority to instigate ceremonies. While adequately conveying the sense of Christ’s authority, there remained potential negative connotations relating to Warlpiri ceremonial life of which we might be unaware.
Here it is that the Holy Spirit led us to make a chance discovery. Transcribing the personal testimony of the local Warlpiri pastor, I noticed that he described how ‘my Warlaljamarri called and embraced me (to the faith)’. Warlaljamarri is based on the root warlalja which means variously ‘family, possessions, belongingness’. A warlaljamarri is the ‘owner’ or ‘possessor’ of something. While previously being aware of the ‘ownership’ aspect of warlaljamarri, this was the first time I had heard it applied spontaneously and naturally in a fashion which did justice to the entire concept of ‘Lordship’. Thus references to Christ as kurios are now being handled by Warlaljamarri.” (Source: Stephen Swartz, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )
Mairasi: Onggoao Nem (“Throated One” — “Leader,” “Elder”) or Enggavot Nan (“Above-One”) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Obolo: Okaan̄-ene (“Owner of person(s)”) (source: Enene Enene)
Lotha Naga: Opvui (“owner of house / field / cattle”) — since both “Lord” and YHWH are translated as Opvui there is an understanding that “Opvui Jesus is the same as the Opvui of the Old Testament”
Seediq: Tholang, loan word from Min Nan Chinese (the majority language in Taiwan) thâu-lâng (頭儂): “Master” (source: Covell 1998, p. 248)
Thai: phra’ phu pen cao (พระผู้เป็นเจ้า) (divine person who is lord) or ong(kh) cao nay (องค์เจ้านาย) (<divine classifier>-lord-boss) (source: Stephen Pattemore)
Arabic often uses different terms for adonai or kurios referring to God (al-rabb الرب) and kurios referring to Jesus (al-sayyid الـسـيـد). Al-rabb is also the term traditionally used in Arabic Christian-idiom translations for YHWH, and al-sayyid is an honorary term, similar to English “lord” or “sir” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin).
Tamil also uses different terms for adonai/kurios when referring to God and kurios when referring to Jesus. The former is Karttar கர்த்தர், a Sanskrit-derived term with the original meaning of “creator,” and the latter in Āṇṭavar ஆண்டவர், a Tamil term originally meaning “govern” or “reign” (source: Natarajan Subramani).
Burunge: Looimoo: “owner who owns everything” (in the Burunge Bible translation, this term is only used as a reference to Jesus and was originally used to refer to the traditional highest deity — source: Michael Endl in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 48)
Aguacateco: Ajcaw ske’j: “the one to whom we belong and who is above us” (source: Rita Peterson in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 49)
Konkomba: Tidindaan: “He who is the owner of the land and reigns over the people” (source: Lidorio 2007, p. 66)
Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew adonai was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments: “Another case is the use of kurios referring to Jesus. For Yahweh (in English Bibles: ‘the Lord‘), the Septuagint uses kurios. Although the term kurios usually has to do with one’s authority over others, when the New Testament authors use this word from the Septuagint to refer to Jesus, they are making an extraordinary claim: Jesus of Nazareth is to be identified with Yahweh.”
Therefore, like “so then” in verse 33, is the same Greek word and indicates that Paul is drawing a conclusion from what precedes.
Here as in other passages, Paul uses different expressions to indicate that he is speaking generally and not about a particular individual. These expressions include Whoever (Good News Bible‘s “anyone”) in verse 27, “a man” (Good News Bible‘s “everyone”) in verse 28, and “any one” in verse 34.
Neither the Greek nor Revised Standard Version makes it clear that the phrase of the Lord applies to both the bread and the cup. However, the context and the phrase the bread (not just “bread”) show that Paul is still speaking of the loaf used in the Lord’s Supper. Good News Bible makes this clear by putting “the Lord’s” before bread and writing “his cup” later in the verse. Translators would do well to restructure the verse in a similar way.
As in previous verses, the word for bread may be translated “loaf” or “loaf of bread”; see comments on verse 26.
Drinks the cup is unnatural English, so Good News Bible has “drinks from his cup.”
In an unworthy manner: the implied object here is Christ, so Good News Bible has added “him”: “In a way that dishonors him.” The literal translation unworthy may be misunderstood as suggesting that there are other people who are “worthy” and who do in some way deserve the benefits of the Lord’s Supper, but no such limitation or comparison is implied. The adverb “unworthily” is not used elsewhere in the New Testament, but in 6.2 the related adjective was translated “incompetent.” Where Paul uses the corresponding positive Greek adjective for “worthy,” it is related to the activity of God (Phil 1.27; 1 Thes 2.12) or Christ (Gal 1.10), and to the calling (Eph 4.1) to belong to God’s people (Rom 16.2); compare 2 Thessalonians 1.11, where Paul speaks of God’s making the readers “worthy of the life he has called you to live” (Good News Bible). Moffatt translates “carelessly” in the present verse. Phillips has “without proper reverence,” and Barclay, perhaps overtranslating, has “in a way that contradicts all the Lord meant it to be.” Good News Bible‘s “in a way that dishonors him” may be the best rendering.
Guilty here refers to profaning or “sinning against” Christ’s death on the cross rather than to being responsible for his death. So even though the Greek does not have a word corresponding to profaning, it should be added as Revised Standard Version and Good News Bible have done.
Commentators disagree about the meaning of the body and blood of the Lord. Some think that body refers to the church, but in that case it is difficult to see why Paul adds blood. It is best to read this verse in the light of verses 24-25 and to translate the key terms in the same way.
Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, 2nd edition. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1985/1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .