The Hebrew phrase that literally means “urinating against the wall” and likely refers to a pejorative, dog-like meaning of “male” or “man” (see translations with a Hebraic voice [1 Samuel 25:22]) is translated verbatim in the Latin Vulgate, the Greek Septuagint and early English translations (Tyndale, King James / Authorised Version, Douay-Rheims) but in most other languages and versions with a term that simply refers to “man” or “male.”
redeem / redemption
The Greek and Hebrew terms that are translated as “redeem” or “redemption” in most English translations (see more on that below) are translated in Kissi as “buying back.” “Ownership of some object may be forfeited or lost, but the original owner may redeem his possession by buying it back. So God, who made us for Himself, permitted us to accept or reject Him. In order to reconcile rebellious mankind He demonstrated His redemptive love in the death of His Son on our behalf.
“The San Blas Kuna describe redemption in a more spiritual sense. They say that it consists of ‘recapturing the spirit.’ A sinful person is one in rebellion against God, and he must be recaptured by God or he will destroy himself. The need of the spirit is to be captured by God. The tragedy is that too many people find their greatest pleasure in secretly trying to elude God, as though they could find some place in the universe where He could not find them. They regard life as a purely private affair, and they object to the claims of God as presented by the church. They accuse the pastor of interfering with the privacy of their own iniquity. Such souls, if they are to be redeemed, must be ‘recaptured.'” (Source: Nida 1952, p. 138)
Click or tap here for more translations or “redeem” / “redemption”
In Ajië a term is used, nawi, that refers to the “custom of planting a small tree on land cursed either by the blood of battle or some calamity.” Clifford (1992, p. 83ff.) retells the story: “Maurice Leenhardt tells how he finally arrived at a term that would express ‘redemption.’ Previous missionaries had interpreted it as an exchange — an exchange of life, that of Jesus for ours. But in Melanesian thinking more strict equivalents were demanded in the exchanges structuring social life. It remained unclear to them how Jesus’ sacrifice could possibly redeem mankind. So unclear was it that even the natas [Melanesians pastors] gave up trying to explain a concept they did not understand very well themselves and simply employed the term “release.” So the matter stood, with the missionary driven to the use of cumbersome circumlocutions, until one day during a conversation on 1 Corinthians 1:30, [Melanesian pastor and Leenhardt’s co-worker] Boesoou Erijisi used a surprising expression: nawi. The term referred to the custom of planting a small tree on land cursed either by the blood of battle or some calamity. ‘Jesus was thus the one who has accomplished the sacrifice and has planted himself like a tree, as though to absorb all the misfortunes of men and to free the world from its taboos.’ Here at last was a concept that seemed to render the principle of ‘redemption’ and could reach deeply enough into living modes of thought. ‘The idea was a rich one, but how could I be sure I understood it right?’ The key test was in the reaction of students and natas to his provisional version. They were, he reports, overjoyed with the ‘deep’ translation.”
In Folopa, the translation team also found a deeply indigenous term. Neil Anderson (in Holzhausen 1991, p. 51) explains: “While I was explaining the meaning of the [concept] to the Folopa men, I could see their faces brighten. They said that this was a common thing among them: ‘If someone falls a tree and it tips to the wrong side, killing someone, the relatives of the injured party claim the life of the guilty party. But in order to save his life, his relatives make amends. Pigs, shells (which are still used as currency here) and other valuables are given to the relatives of the deceased as payment for the life of the guilty party. In this way he can live because others stand up for him.’ Full of joy, I began to utilize this thought to the difficult translation of the word ‘redemption.’ Mark 10:45 reads now, translated back from the Folopa: ‘Jesus came to make an atonement, by which he takes upon himself the punishment for the evil deeds of many. He came so that through his death many might be liberated.’ After working on this verse for half an hour, I read it to my friends. They became silent and moved their slightly bowed heads thoughtfully back and forth. Finally, one of them took the floor, ‘We give a lot to right a wrong. But we have never given a human being as a price of atonement. Jesus did a great work for us when he made restitution. Because he died, all of us now don’t have to bear the punishment we deserve. We are liberated.'”
In Samoan the translation is togiola which originally refers to a fine mat. John Bradshaw (in The Bible Translator 1967, p. 75ff. ) explains: “The rite of submission applies in cases of grave sin which demands an extreme punishment: offenses such as murder, adultery or disrespectful behavior towards a chief. Submission is made in expectation of forgiveness. The rite is normally enacted at dawn. The prisoner and his family, or even his whole village bow down in silence before the house of the chief or other offended party. The prisoner heads the group and is covered with a fine mat, offered as his ransom. In other words, he submits himself completely to the authority of those whom he has offended. Many such submissions have been successfully offered and received. Those inside the house will come out, and bring into it those offering submission. The priestly orators speak sweetly and all join in a meal. The fine mat is accepted, while the prisoner is set free and forgiven. He no longer goes in fear of retribution for his sin. (…) If now we turn to the relation between the believer and the Redeemer, we notice at once that the word togiola, literally the price of one’s life, was the word used to denote the fine mat with which the sinner covered himself in the rite of Submission. The acceptance of the togiola set free the prisoner. It was inevitable that togiola should render lutron, ransom, as in Matthew 20:28.”
Other translations include:
- Manya: “buy” (source: Don Slager)
- Uma: “freed (from suffering)” (source: Uma Back Translation)
- Western Bukidnon Manobo: “set free” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Bariai: “unbind” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
The translation into English also is noteworthy:
“In Hebrew there are two terms, ga’al and padah, usually rendered ‘to redeem,’ which have likewise undergone significant changes in meaning with resulting obscurity and misunderstanding. Both terms are used in the Old Testament for a person being redeemed from slavery. In the case of padah, the primary emphasis is upon the redemption by means of payment, and in ga’al the redemption of an individual, usually by payment, is made by some relative or an individual of the same clan or society. These two words, however, are used in the Old Testament in circumstances in which there is no payment at all. For example, the redemption of Jews from Egypt is referred to by these two terms, but clearly there was no payment made to the Egyptians or to Pharaoh.
“In the New Testament a related problem occurs, for the words agorázō and exagorazó, meaning literally ‘to buy’ or ‘to buy back’ and ‘to buy out,’ were translated into Latin as redimo and into English normally as ‘redeem.’ The almost exclusive association of Latin redimo with payment became such a focal element of meaning that during the Middle Ages a theory developed that God had to pay the Devil in order to get believers out of hell and into heaven.
“As in the case of the Old Testament, New Testament contexts employing the Greek verb lutroó, literally ‘to redeem’ or ‘to ransom,’ do not refer primarily to payment but focus upon deliverance and being set free. But even today there is such a heavy tradition of the theological concept of payment that any attempt to translate lutroó as ‘to deliver’ or ‘to set free’ is misjudged by some as being heretical.” (Source: Nida 1984, p. 114f.)
See also redeemer and next-of-kin / kinsman-redeemer / close relative.
complete verse (1 Kings 16:11)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 1 Kings 16:11:
- Kupsabiny: “After Zimri had taken hold of the kingship, he killed all the people of the house of Baasha without leaving even one man. He also killed the friends of Baasha.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
- Newari: “As soon as he sat on the throne, Zimri killed Baasha’s entire family line. Among the friends and family of Baasha, he did not even spare a single man.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
- Hiligaynon: “As soon as Zimri began to reign, he killed all the household of Baasha. He did- not -leave any male even from the blood-relatives and friends of Baasha.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
- English: “As soon as Zimri became king , he killed all of Baasha’s family. That included every male in Baasha’s family and all of Baasha’s male friends.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Translation commentary on 1 Kings 16:11
The pronouns he, himself, and his in the first half of this verse all refer to Zimri. The pronouns him and his in the second half of the verse refer to Baasha.
When he began to reign may be translated “As soon as he began to reign” (see the comments on the nearly identical Hebrew construction in 1 Kgs 15.29). The immediacy of Zimri’s actions against the family of Baasha is highlighted by the addition of the words as soon as he had seated himself on his throne (literally “as to sit him on the throne”). The use in English of the reflexive verb form, seated himself, correctly reflects the Hebrew grammar with its emphasis on the fact that Zimri took power by illegitimate means.
House of Baasha refers to his family (see verse 3).
A single male is literally “one who urinates against a wall.” See the comments on this idiom in 1 Kgs 14.10.
Kinsmen is literally “redeemer.” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible says “guarantor.” It was the responsibility of the closest relative to buy back the land of a relative who had to sell the property because of financial difficulties (Lev 25.25). This kinsman was also responsible for taking revenge by killing the person who killed his relative (Num 35.16-28; Deut 19.4-13). The translation kinsmen or “relative” (Good News Translation) in this context fails to express the full sense of the Hebrew. By killing all of the “redeemers,” Zimri was making sure that there was no one left among Baasha’s relatives who would be able to take revenge.
Translators should make sure this meaning is clear. One way is to explain this in a footnote, such as the one in Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, which says “The Hebrew word translated relatives means avenger, because the relatives were to carry out the ‘blood vengeance’ (see Numbers 35.12).” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible also has a helpful footnote that may serve as a model. It reads “One of the duties of the guarantor was to undertake the responsibility of ‘blood vengeance’; see Num 35.12.”
A better solution, however, is to express this meaning in the text itself, rather than to depend upon a footnote. A possible translation for the last half of the verse is “he did not leave a single male, not a relative to avenge his death nor any of his friends.”
The Hebrew noun rendered friends is singular, but it should be understood in this context in a plural sense as most translations do.
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.