sin

The Hebrew, Ge’ez, 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.

addressing one's or someone else's father respectfully in Japanese (父上)

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 important aspect of addressing someone else in one’s or someone else’s family is by selecting the correct word when referring to them.

One way to do this is through the usage of an appropriate title within a conversation as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. When the speaker humbly refers to his or her father in the presence of respected interlocutor(s), chichi (父) is often used (see addressing one’s father humbly / respectfully in Japanese (父)).

In some conversations, archaic honorific forms for “father” are chosen that also contain chichi (父) and typically indicate a greater level of respect. That includes chichi-ue (父上). An interesting contrast between the use of of chichi and chichi-ue can be found when there is a reference to “my father and your father.” The former is addressed with chichi and the latter with chichi-ue (for more see 1 Kings 15:19, 1 Kings 20:34, and 2 Chronicles 16:3 along with addressing one’s father humbly / respectfully in Japanese (父)). (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

complete verse (1 Samuel 20:1)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 1 Samuel 20:1:

  • Kupsabiny: “David left Naioth and fled to where Jonathan was. When he reached there, he asked Jonathan that, ‘What have I done? What sin did I commit? My friend, why does your father want to kill me?’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “Then David ran away from Naioth in Ramah and went to Jonathan. He said to Jonathan, "What have I done? What is my mistake? What have I done against your father and why is he trying to kill me?"” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Now, David fled from Nayot at Rama and went to Jonatan and asked, ‘What sin have- I -committed against your (sing.) father that he wants to-kill me?’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “David ran away from the Naioth section of Ramah city. He went to Jonathan and asked him, ‘What have I done to displease your father? What did I do that was wrong? Why is he trying to kill me?’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

David

The name that is transliterated as “David” in English means “beloved.” (Source: Cornwall / Smith 1997 )

In Spanish Sign Language it is translated with the sign signifying king and a sling (referring to 1 Samuel 17:49 and 2 Samuel 5:4). (Source: John Elwode in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 78ff. )


“Elizabeth” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España

In German Sign Language it is only the sling. (See here ).


“David” in German Sign Language (source )

For more information on translations of proper names with sign language see Sign Language Bible Translations Have Something to Say to Hearing Christians .

The (Protestant) Mandarin Chinese transliteration of “David” is 大卫 (衛) / Dàwèi which carries an additional meaning of “Great Protector.”

Click or tap here to see a short video clip about David (source: Bible Lands 2012)

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: David .

Honorary "rare" construct denoting God ("seeking")

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, motometeo-rare-ru (求めておられる) or “seeking” is used.

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

Translation commentary on 1 Samuel 20:1

Fled: see the comments on 19.18. In this context some languages may prefer to say “continued running away” or “started running again,” since this is not the first time David tried to get away from Saul.

Naioth in Ramah: see the comments on 19.18.

The difference between the verbs came (Revised Standard Version) and “went” (Good News Translation) is a matter of the perspective of the writer. Since the writer of the books of Samuel was probably not located where Jonathan was, the verb “went” will be more appropriate in most languages. And since David had previously been where Jonathan was, some may prefer to say “went back [to Jonathan].”

The words came and said before Jonathan sound strange in English. Indeed, certain manuscripts of the Septuagint change the word order to something that sounds more natural: “came before Jonathan and said.” In any case this seems to be the meaning of the unusual order, so it is possible to translate simply “came and said to Jonathan.” And since a question follows, many translators may wish to render it “came and asked Jonathan.”

The three questions What have I done? What is my guilt? And what is my sin…? are not three different matters. Rather they focus on a single fact. David cannot see that he has done anything at all to deserve Saul’s anger. For this reason the conjunction and introducing the third question may be out of place in many languages. Since the intent of these questions is to deny forcefully any wrongdoing, one or more of them may be translated by an emphatic statement like “I have done nothing wrong!” Because of the cumulative effect of the three items, they should not be reduced unless absolutely required by the receptor language. In using the words guilt and sin, David is not thinking of any technical distinctions. They are simply synonyms for wrongdoing.

Seeks my life: the Hebrew word (nefesh), translated life, is often rendered “soul” in other contexts. But the whole expression indicates that Saul wanted to take away David’s life; that is, he wanted to kill him.

In some languages the crucial question about why Saul wanted to kill David may come more naturally at the beginning of the series of questions (so Contemporary English Version) rather than at the end.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .