The Hebrew, Greek, Ge’ez, and Latin that are translated as “covenant” in English are translated in a variety of ways. Here are some (back-) translations:
Natügu: nzesz’tikr drtwr: “oneness of mind” (source: Brenda Boerger in Beerle-Moor / Voinov, p. 164)
Tagalog: tipan: mutual promising on the part of two persons agreeing to do something (also has a romantic touch and denotes something secretive) (source: G. Henry Waterman in The Bible Translator 1960, p. 24ff. )
Tagbanwa: “initiated-agreement” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Guhu-Samane: “The concept [in Mark 14:24 and Matthew 16:28] is not easy, but the ritual freeing of a fruit and nut preserve does afford some reference. Thus, ‘As they were drinking he said to them, ‘On behalf of many this poro provision [poro is the traditional religion] of my blood is released.’ (…) God is here seen as the great benefactor and man the grateful recipient.” (Source: Ernest Richert in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. )
Chichewa: pangano. This word can also be translated as a contract, agreement, or a treaty between two parties. In Chewa culture, two people or groups enter into an agreement to help each other in times of need. When entering into an agreement, parties look at the mutual benefits which will be gained. The agreement terms are mostly kept as a secret between the parties and the witnesses involved. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Law (2013, p. 95) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew berith was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments (click or tap here to read more):
“Right from the start we witness the influence of the Septuagint on the earliest expressions of the Christian faith. In the New Testament, Jesus speaks of his blood being a kaine diatheke, a ‘new covenant.’ The covenant is elucidated in Hebrews 8:8-12 and other texts, but it was preserved in the words of Jesus with this language in Luke 22:20 when at the Last Supper Jesus said, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Jesus’s blood was to provide the grounds for the ‘new covenant,’ in contrast to the old one his disciples knew from the Jewish scriptures (e.g., Jeremiah 31:31-34). Thus, the earliest Christians accepted the Jewish Scriptures as prophecies about Jesus and in time began to call the collection the ‘Old Testament’ and the writings about Jesus and early Christianity the ‘New Testament,’ since ‘testament’ was another word for ‘covenant.’ The covenant promises of God (berith in Hebrew) were translated in the Septuagint with the word diatheke. In classical Greek diatheke had meant ‘last will, testament,’ but in the Septuagint it is the chosen equivalent for God’s covenant with his people. The author of Hebrews plays on the double meaning, and when Luke records Jesus’ announcement at the Last Supper that his blood was instituting a ‘new covenant,’ or a ‘new testament,’ he is using the language in an explicit contrast with the old covenant, found in the Jewish scriptures. Soon, the writings that would eventually be chosen to make up the texts about the life and teachings of Jesus and the earliest expression of the Christian faith would be called the New Testament. This very distinction between the Old and New Testaments is based on the Septuagint’s language.”
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 exclusive form (referring only to Paul).
Source: SIL International Translation Department (1999).
Following are a number of back-translations of 2 Corinthians 3:6:
Uma: “He gives us (excl.) ability to be his workers, who take his new Promise to mankind. That new Promise is not merely written laws. That new Promise is that he gives us (incl.) new life from the Holy Spirit. For if we want to be straight in God’s sight just by our following of written laws, we will certainly get death. But if we follow God from the power of the Holy Spirit, we will get good life forever.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “He is the one who gave us expertise so that we could promote his new covenant. What God gave to mankind now is not a written law but his Spirit. The written law carries/brings death because mankind cannot follow it. But God’s Spirit carries/brings life without end.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “For He is the one who gives us wisdom so that we might teach the new way which He established for His becoming one with mankind. And this new way was not given by means of the written Law, but rather it was given to us (incl.) by means of the Holy Spirit. For if the thing that we are depending on is our keeping the Law, then death without end is what we can expect. However, if the Holy Spirit is given to us (incl.), then a life without end is what we can expect.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Because he is the one who made-sufficient our (excl.) ability to teach concerning the new agreement-that-he-proposed to people. This new agreement, it is not like the written law of Moses, but rather it is based on the work of God’s Spirit. Because the result of the written law, it is punishment that has no end, but God’s Spirit by-contrast, he gives life that has no end.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “God is the one who raised us (excl.) up as teachers of his new initiated-agreement with people. This new initiated-agreement, it is not like God’s written laws which, with reference to doing, the people were indeed obeying but, with reference to the mind/inner-being, they were far from his will. Really if it’s like that, death which is punishment which has no end is the outcome. But if our following/obeying of God’s will is true/genuine, in that it’s not just in work/doing but rather really from their mind/inner-being which is concentrated, the outcome will be life without end.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “God it is who caused that I am able to tell the people of the new agreement which God made with people. This new agreement does not have written a lot of laws which it says the people must walk by. Rather the new agreement says that only the Holy Spirit is able to give new life to the people. Concerning the person who says that he will do all the words written in the law, it is punishment he meets up with because he has sin. But the Holy Spirit is the one who gives new life.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
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 to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. When the referent is God, the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御 or み) can be used, as in mi-tama (御霊) or “Spirit (of God)” in the referenced verses.
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 to do this is through the usage of lexical honorific forms, i.e., completely different words, as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, kudasaru (下さる), a respectful form of kureru (くれる) or “give” is used.
This is a continuation of the sentence started at the beginning of the previous verse. However, the relative clause beginning with who … should probably be made into a new sentence in many languages. One can begin with “Indeed, it is he [God] who…” or something similar.
On the first person plural pronouns, see comments on 2 Cor. 3.4.
Has made us competent: the verb tense in Greek may be translated with the perfect tense in English, as in Revised Standard Version (also Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible), or with the simple past tense, as in Good News Translation. If, as seems likely, Paul is looking back to the specific call of God as in Gal 1.15-16, then the past tense of Good News Translation better expresses Paul’s thought here. If, on the other hand, Paul’s focus is on the results of what God did, then a translation such as New Jerusalem Bible expresses the thought clearly: “He has given us the competence to be ministers.” If the latter interpretation is followed, the habitual verb form may be required in certain languages.
The word ministers does not refer to ordained clergy or even to modern-day deacons, although the word used here, diakonos, is the origin of our English word “deacon.” The Greek word means simply “one who serves.”
The concept of a new covenant appears in the Old Testament in Jer 31.31-34, and elsewhere in the New Testament in Luke 22.20 and 1 Cor 11.25. A covenant is an agreement, usually between two parties. As indicated in A Handbook on the Letter to the Hebrews (pages 243–244), the term covenant is “the most central theological concept in the Old Testament.” In the New Testament it defines the new relationship between God and human beings that has been created by the life and death of Jesus Christ. There is both continuity and difference involved in the Old and New Testament concepts. The term also means “testament” or “will” in certain contexts. In the present context it is a special contract between God and humanity. In this agreement all the conditions are determined by one party (God), but that does not indicate that the one who sets the conditions is a tyrant. While it is true that the initiative is completely God’s, the benefits are completely for his people. The receptor language term chosen to translate covenant will almost certainly require an extensive entry in the glossary.
The words not in a written code, literally “not of a letter,” mean that the new covenant is not an agreement that has been put in writing, as was God’s written covenant expressed in the Old Testament. The word for “letter” here is not the same as in the expression “letters of recommendation” in verses 1 and 2 of this chapter but is the word for letters of the alphabet. Thus the emphasis here is on the act of writing. Note that Good News Translation, like many other modern versions, supplies the implied word “law.” Some other models are “matters written down” or “written letters” (New Jerusalem Bible).
But in the Spirit is literally “but of spirit.” This spirit is not the human spirit but the Spirit of God. Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation correctly capitalize Spirit. The new covenant is “spiritual” (Revised English Bible, Knox, Translator’s New Testament). In some languages it may be necessary to say explicitly “the Spirit of God” or “the Holy Spirit” (Contemporary English Version).
The written code kills, but the Spirit gives life: in some languages it is necessary to state the object of the verbs kills and gives life. The meaning is that the Law of Moses leads to spiritual death of people, while God’s Spirit gives people spiritual life. Also, the verb “kill” may not fit naturally in the receptor language with “written law” or “written code” as its subject. In this case it may be less awkward to say “leads to death,” “causes death,” or “brings death.”
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellingworth, Paul. A Handbook on Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1993. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
3:6a And He has qualified us as ministers of a new covenant,
He has caused us (excl.) to become capable/competent ministers/servants/agents of a new covenant/promise/agreement,
-or-
He enables us to have all the ability we need to do his work of the new covenant ⌊of Jesus⌋ well.
3:6b not of the letter but of the Spirit;
which is not of written laws but of the ⌊Holy⌋ Spirit,
-or-
This new covenant is based on ⌊the leading of⌋ the Holy Spirit ⌊in our(incl.)hearts⌋ and not based on ⌊external control by⌋ written laws.
3:6c for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
because the written laws called for death ⌊as punishment⌋, but the ⌊Holy⌋ Spirit gives life.
-or-
For the written laws ⌊of the old covenant⌋ condemn people to die, but ⌊under/by the new covenant⌋ the Holy Spirit enables people to live.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.