mind (heart / soul) (letters of John)

The concept that is expressed as “mind” in English is translated as “head-heart” in Yatzachi Zapotec. This concept is applied to terms that are translated in English as “fellowship” (“head-hearts are one”), the “inner-self” (“have no evil” is “have no evil in our head-hearts”), “eye” (in the sense of “understanding”), “heart” and “soul.”

Source: John Beekman in Notes on Translation November 1964, p. 1-22.

See also heart, soul, mind (with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind).

fellowship

The Greek that is translated in English as “fellowship” or “communion” is translated in Huba as daɓǝkǝr: “joining heads.” (Source: David Frank in this blog post )

Other translations include:

  • Lalana Chinantec: “they were very happy since they were with their brothers”
  • Chichimeca-Jonaz “always well they talk together”
  • Chuj: “were at peace with each other”
  • San Mateo del Mar Huave: “they accompanied the other believers”
  • Ayutla Mixtec: “they were united together”
  • Eastern Highland Otomi: “their hearts were happy because they all thought alike” (source for this and above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
  • Uma: “harmony” (source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “become one” (source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “have an intimate relationship” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “companionship” (source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “be friends” (source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
  • Yatzachi Zapotec: “head-hearts are one”
  • Eastern Highland Otomi: “be of the same mind” (source for this and two above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 1964, p. 1ff.)

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (1John 1:7)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the addressee).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

sin

The Hebrew and Greek that is typically translated as “sin” in English has a wide variety of translations.

The Greek ἁμαρτάνω (hamartanō) carries the original verbatim meaning of “miss the mark” and likewise, many translations contain the “connotation of moral responsibility.”

  • Loma: “leaving the road” (which “implies a definite standard, the transgression of which is sin”)
  • Navajo (Dinė): “that which is off to the side” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Toraja-Sa’dan: kasalan, originally meaning “transgression of a religious or moral rule” and in the context of the Bible “transgression of God’s commandments” (source: H. van der Veen in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 21ff. )
  • Kaingang: “break God’s word”
  • Bariai: “bad behavior” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
  • Sandawe: “miss the mark” (like the original meaning of the Greek term) (source for this and above: Ursula Wiesemann in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 36ff., 43)
  • Nias: horö, originally a term primarily used for sexual sin. (Source: Hummel / Telaumbanua 2007, p. 256)
  • Mauwake: “heavy” (compare forgiveness as “take away one’s heaviness”) (source: Kwan Poh San in this article )

In Shipibo-Conibo the term is hocha. Nida (1952, p. 149) tells the story of its choosing: “In some instances a native expression for sin includes many connotations, and its full meaning must be completely understood before one ever attempts to use it. This was true, for example, of the term hocha first proposed by Shipibo-Conibo natives as an equivalent for ‘sin.’ The term seemed quite all right until one day the translator heard a girl say after having broken a little pottery jar that she was guilty of ‘hocha.’ Breaking such a little jar scarcely seemed to be sin. However, the Shipibos insisted that hocha was really sin, and they explained more fully the meaning of the word. It could be used of breaking a jar, but only if the jar belonged to someone else. Hocha was nothing more nor less than destroying the possessions of another, but the meaning did not stop with purely material possessions. In their belief God owns the world and all that is in it. Anyone who destroys the work and plan of God is guilty of hocha. Hence the murderer is of all men most guilty of hocha, for he has destroyed God’s most important possession in the world, namely, man. Any destructive and malevolent spirit is hocha, for it is antagonistic and harmful to God’s creation. Rather than being a feeble word for some accidental event, this word for sin turned out to be exceedingly rich in meaning and laid a foundation for the full presentation of the redemptive act of God.”

In Warao it is translated as “bad obojona.” Obojona is a term that “includes the concepts of consciousness, will, attitude, attention and a few other miscellaneous notions.” (Source: Henry Osborn in The Bible Translator 1969, p. 74ff. ). See other occurrences of Obojona in the Warao New Testament.

Martin Ehrensvärd, one of the translators for the Danish Bibelen 2020, comments on the translation of this term: “We would explain terms, such that e.g. sin often became ‘doing what God does not want’ or ‘breaking God’s law’, ‘letting God down’, ‘disrespecting God’, ‘doing evil’, ‘acting stupidly’, ‘becoming guilty’. Now why couldn’t we just use the word sin? Well, sin in contemporary Danish, outside of the church, is mostly used about things such as delicious but unhealthy foods. Exquisite cakes and chocolates are what a sin is today.” (Source: Ehrensvärd in HIPHIL Novum 8/2023, p. 81ff. )

See also sinner.

complete verse (1 John 1:7)

Following are a number of back-translations of 1 John 1:7:

  • Uma: “If we walk in the light, like God is in the light, we are in harmony with one another, and he cleans us from all our sins because of the blood of Yesus his Child who died to be our redeemer.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “But if our (dual) dwelling is in the light as God is in the light, then we (incl.) all are of one liver, and because of the blood of Isa, the Son of God, all our (dual) sins are taken-away and we (dual) are now clean/holy.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “If our way is bright just like God is bright, which is to say, if we have submitted ourselves to God, we have a close relationship to each other, and we are always being cleansed from any of our sins by means of our being annointed with the blood of Jesus, the Son of God.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “But if however we remain where it is light/bright as God does, then our companionship with our fellow believers will be good and at-the-same-time all our sins will be being washed on-account-of the blood of Jesus his Child.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “But if we are always living in harmony with the light/enlightenment, being far from sin, just like God, for as for him, he is really wholly in the light, our fellowship who are believers in him will really be good. And as for that blood of Jesus his Son which was shed (lit.caused to drip), it cleanses us, because it removes all our sins.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “If we live good, just as God does only good, then it is true that we are friends with each other. And all our sins are acquitted because of the blood shed by Jesus Christ.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
  • Yatzachi Zapotec: “God is like light because he does good. And if we also walk doing good, then our head-hearts are just one each of us with the other of us (in). Jesus Christ God’s son, died shed his blood to wash our head-hearts with all our evil.”
  • Eastern Highland Otomi: “But it we are walking in the light, where God is, then the same-way we think, and the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, continually cleans us of all our sins.”
  • Tzotzil: “If all of us walk along in sunlight like God is in the sunlight, therefore one we become for sure. God continually washes out all our sins by the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son.” (Source for this and two above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)

Japanese benefactives (kiyomete)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between. One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.

Here, kiyomete (きよめて) or “cleanse” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).” (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Honorary "rare" construct denoting God ("is/be present")

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme rare (られ) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, o-rare-ru (おられる) or “is/be present” is used.

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )