Following are a number of back-translations of Galatians 2:18:
Uma: “If for example I have already abandoned my following the Law of Musa and after that I return again to following that Law, I really sin, relatives.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “But if I again follow/obey the law which I had rejected/turned-my-back-on and I say that the law ought to be followed/obeyed, na, it is clear that I am sinful because I broke/tresspassed the law.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “For if I return to the Law which I abandoned and I say that it is the proper way, I am showing then that it’s really true that I am a sinner because I have disobeyed the Law.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Because the truth of it is, I show that I have sinned if I turn-to-face to follow again the law that I turned-my-back-on previously.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “However if we have abandoned this trail of our obeying of the laws, because we have now comprehended that it’s not that which can save people, and then we return again to it, well that truly is sin.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “I have now said that the law doesn’t have power to take care of sin. Should it be that I reverse myself and say that the law has the force to do so, then it is not true that my sins were taken care of.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Sissala: kaŋtɔŋ, which traditionally referred to “either a spirit of natural phenomena such as trees, rivers, stones, etc., or the spirit of a deceased person that has not been taken into the realm of the dead. Kaŋtɔŋ can be good or evil. Evil kaŋtɔŋ can bring much harm to people and are feared accordingly. A kaŋtɔŋ can also dwell in a person living on this earth. A person possessed by kaŋtɔŋ does not behave normally.” (Source: Regina Blass in Holzhausen 1991, p. 48f.)
Umiray Dumaget Agta: hayup or “creature, animal, general term for any non-human creature, whether natural or supernatural.” Thomas Headland (in: Notes on Translation, September 1971, p. 17ff.) explains some more: “There are several types of supernatural creatures, or spirit beings which are designated by the generic term hayup. Just as we have several terms in English for various spirit beings (elves, fairies, goblins, demons, imps, pixies) so have the Dumagats. And just as you will find vast disagreement and vagueness among English informants as to the differences between pixies and imps, etc., so you will find that no two Dumagats will agree as to the form and function of their different spirit beings.” This term can also be used in a verb form: hayupen: “creatured” or “to be killed, made sick, or crazy by a spirit.”
Yala: yapri̍ija ɔdwɔ̄bi̍ or “bad Yaprija.” Yaprijas are traditional spirits that have a range presumed activities including giving or withholding gifts, giving and protecting children, causing death and disease and rewarding good behavior. (Source: Eugene Bunkowske in Notes on Translation 78/1980, p. 36ff.)
Lamnso’: aànyùyi jívirì: “lesser gods who disturb, bother, pester, or confuse a person.” (Source: Fanwong 2013, p. 93)
Paasaal: gyɩŋbɔmɔ, “beings that are in the wild and can only be seen when they choose to reveal themselves to certain people. They can ‘capture’ humans and keep them in hiding while they train the person in herbalism and divination. After the training period, which can range from a week to many years, the ‘captured’ individual is released to go back into society as a healer and a diviner. The gyɩŋbɔmɔ can also be evil, striking humans with mental diseases and causing individuals to get lost in the wild. The Pasaale worldview about demons is like that of others of the language groups in the area, including the Northern Dagara [who use kɔ̃tɔmɛ with a similar meaning].” (Source: Fabian N. Dapila in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 415ff.)
In the still widely-used 1908 Tswana (also: Setswana) translation (by Robert Moffat, revised by Alfred Wookey), the term badino or “ancestor spirit” is used for “demon,” even though in the traditional understanding there is nothing inherently negative associated with that term. Musa Dube (in: Journal of Society of New Testament 73, 1999, p. 33ff. ) describes this as an example of “engaging in the colonization of the minds of natives and for advancing European imperial spaces. The death and burial of Setswana culture here was primarily championed through the colonization of their language such that it no longer served the interests of the original speakers. Instead the written form of language had equated their cultural beliefs with evil spirits, demons and wizardry. This colonization of Setswana was in itself the planting of a colonial cultural bomb, meant to clear the ground for the implantation of a worldwide Christian commonwealth and European consciousness. It was a minefield that marked Setswana cultural spaces as dangerous death zones, to be avoided by every intelligent Motswana reader or hearer of the translated text.”
In Kachin, the term Nat (or nat) us used for “demon” (as well as “devil” and “unclean/evil spirit“). Like in Tswana, the meaning of Nat is not inherently negative but can be positive in the traditional Nat worship as well. Naw Din Dumdaw (in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 94ff.) argues that “the demonization of Nat created a social conflict between Kachin Christians and Kachin non-Christians. Kachin converts began to perceive their fellow Kachins who were still worshipping Nats as demonic and they wanted to distance themselves from them. Likewise, the Nat-worshiping Kachin community perceived the Kachin converts as betrayers and enemies of their own cultural heritage. (…) The demonization of the word Nat was not only the demonization of the pre-Christian religion but also the demonization of the cultural heritage of the Kachin people. When the word Nat is perceived as demonic, it creates an existential dilemma for Kachin Christians. It distances them from their cultural traditions.”
Rebuild and tore down are figures of speech derived from the construction of buildings, but the Greek text does not specify what is being rebuilt or what was previously torn down. The reference may be (1) to the statutes of the Law which Paul had declared as no longer valid for the Christian (New American Bible “If … I were to build up the very things I had demolished”); (2) to the whole system of man being put right with God by means of obedience to the Law (New English Bible “If I start building up again a system which I have pulled down”; Phillips “But if I attempt to build again the whole structure of justification by the law”); or (3) to one’s favorable attitude toward the Jewish idea of being put right with God by means of law (Jerusalem Bible “If I were to return to a position I had already abandoned”).
Breaks the Law translates a Greek word which literally means “transgressor” or “law-breaker,” here used in its moral sense, one who disobeys the moral spirit of the law, and therefore practically equivalent to “wrongdoer,” “evil-doer,” or “sinner” in the ethical sense. In order to emphasize the ethical sense of “transgressor” in this context, one may say “I really am doing what is wrong,” or “I am really then a sinner.” This will serve to contrast actual sin from the sin mentioned in verse 17.
The point of Paul here is that contrary to the assertion that Christ is made an agent of sin, it is only when a person returns to the old Jewish system of works of law that he becomes a sinner in terms of the Law.
Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
In 2:18, Paul explains why Christ did not cause Christian Jews to be sinners (2:17). A sinner is not someone who abandons the law and believes in Jesus to make him righteous. A sinner is someone who returns to following the law after abandoning it. Paul introduces this explanation with a Greek conjunction is often translated as “for,” as in many English versions. Some other ways to introduce this explanation are:
What I mean is that -or-
Rather (New Living Translation (2004))
The Berean Standard Bible has not translated this conjunction, and some other versions, such as the New International Version and Good News Translation, also do not translate it. In some languages, it will not be necessary to translate this conjunction either. Connect 2:18a to 2:17c in a way that is natural in your language.
If I rebuild what I have already torn down: This “if” clause contains a metaphor. In this metaphor, Paul compared justification by following the law to a building. He compared abandoning the law as a means of justification to tearing down the building. And he compared returning to obeying the law as a means of justification to rebuilding the building. This can be charted as follows:
Paul’s metaphor
nonmetaphorical form
a building
Jews believe that a person is made right with God by obeying the laws of Moses.
I destroyed the building
When I became a Christian, I stopped believing that it was necessary to obey the law to be right with God.
If I rebuild the building
If I return to again believing that it is necessary to obey the law to be right with God,
Some possible ways to translate this metaphor are:
• Translate the metaphor. In some languages, it will be more natural to change the order of the terms rebuild and torn down. For example:
if I tear down something and then build it again (Contemporary English Version)
• Use a simile. For example:
If ?I return to obeying the law for justification, it is as if? I rebuild a building that I had destroyed.
• Translate the meaning. For example:
If I stop following the law in order to be justified, and then I start following it again -or-
If I believe that it is necessary to believe in Christ for justification instead of following the law, and then I change and start following the law again for justification
I: When Paul used the pronoun I here, he used himself to represent Peter and the other Jewish believers in 2:13a. These were the people who implied that obeying the law was necessary for justification. Paul used the pronoun I here to be polite and indirect.
Some languages can use the pronoun I in this way. In English and many other languages, the pronoun I is confusing here. Some languages use other means to be polite and indirect. For example:
If a person rebuilds what he destroyed -or-
If we rebuild what we destroyed -or-
If someone destroys something then rebuilds it again
In this verse, use whichever form is most natural in your language. You will also need to translate “I” in 2:18b in the same way.
2:18b
I prove myself to be a lawbreaker: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as prove means “demonstrate” or “show.” A lawbreaker is a person who transgresses/breaks the law. In this clause, Paul stated that people who return to obeying the law for justification show that they are lawbreakers.
Paul was probably still thinking of what Peter did. Peter broke Jewish laws when he ate with Gentiles. (He tore down the building.) Then he started to follow the law again when he stopped eating with them. (He rebuilt the building.) When he returned to following the law, he showed that he had broken the law. He showed that he was a lawbreaker. So Christ was not the one who led him to sin. Peter’s own actions showed that he had become a sinner.
Some other ways to translate this clause are:
then I show myself to be someone who breaks the Law (Good News Translation) -or-
then he shows that he did not follow/obey the law -or-
we show that we are sinners
I: You should use the same pronoun or word as you used in 2:18a.
Living Water is produced for the Bible translation movement in association with Lutheran Bible Translators. Lyrics derived from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.