The Greek that is typically translated with a generic expressions such as “he who,” “whoever,” or “if anyone” in English is translated with the plural form (“they”) in Daga. “A literal translation of these conveys the idea that one specific unnamed individual is being discussed. Thus, for instance, in John 5:24 ‘he who hears my word and believes in him who sent me has eternal life’ meant in Daga that there was one fortunate individual to whom it applied.”
Following are a number of back-translations of Galatians 3:12:
Uma: “If we want to become straight in God’s sight by following the Law of Musa, it means that we are trusting in our own behavior, we are not believing in God. Because there is written in the Holy Book that says: "Whoever really does all these laws, they are the ones who get life from these laws."” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “If there would be a person who could follow/obey all commandments in the law, he would not need to trust in Isa Almasi. For there is also written in the holy-book, it says, ‘The person who can follow/obey all that is commanded in the law, he shall live forever.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “However, if there is a person who thoroughly observes every command in the Law, it’s not necessary for him to believe so that he might be given life forever. For there is a written word of God which says, ‘A person who thoroughly observes every command in the Law, he will be given life forever.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “A person’s faith in God is also far different from his following the law, because there is also that which God caused-to-be-written that says, ‘The person who obeys all the commands of the law, he has life that has no end.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “But the one trusting his obedience to the laws, he has gone far from the way of trusting in what Cristo did. Well, it’s clear that there is evidently nothing gained by this. For in the writing it says again that the one obeying the laws, it’s necessary that he obey them fully throughout his whole life.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Then nothing will come of the faith of a person who wants to do what all the law says. Because it is written in the law: ‘The person who does not lack in anything which is said in the law is the person who will receive new life.'” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Translations of the Greek pistis and its various forms that are typically translated as “faith” in English (itself deriving from Latin “fides,” meaning “trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence”) and “believe” (from Old English belyfan: “to have faith or confidence in a person”) cover a wide range of approaches.
Bratcher and Nida say this (1961, p. 38) (click or tap here to read more):
“Since belief or faith is so essentially an intimate psychological experience, it is not strange that so many terms denoting faith should be highly figurative and represent an almost unlimited range of emotional ‘centers’ and descriptions of relationships, e.g. ‘steadfast his heart’ (Chol), ‘to arrive on the inside’ (Chicahuaxtla Triqui), ‘to conform with the heart’ (Uab Meto), ‘to join the word to the body’ (Uduk), ‘to hear in the insides’ (or ‘to hear within one’s self and not let go’ — Nida 1952) (Laka), ‘to make the mind big for something’ (Sapo), ‘to make the heart straight about’ (Mitla Zapotec), ‘to cause a word to enter the insides’ (Lacandon), ‘to leave one’s heart with’ (Baniwa), ‘to catch in the mind’ (Ngäbere), ‘that which one leans on’ (Vai), ‘to be strong on’ (Shipibo-Conibo), ‘to have no doubts’ (San Blas Kuna), ‘to hear and take into the insides’ (Kare), ‘to accept’ (Pamona).”
Following is a list of (back-) translations from other languages (click or tap here to read more):
Limos Kalinga: manuttuwa. Wiens (2013) explains: “It goes back to the word for ‘truth’ which is ‘tuttuwa.’ When used as a verb this term is commonly used to mean ‘believe’ as well as ‘obey.'”
Ngiemboon: “turn one’s back on someone” (and trusting one won’t be taken advantage of) (source: Stephen Anderson in Holzhausen 1991, p. 42)
Mwera uses the same word for “hope” and “faith”: ngulupai (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Yala: ɔtū che or “place heart” (in John 5:24; 5:45; 6:35; 6:47; 12:36; 14:1); other translations include chɛ̄ or “to agree/accept” and chɛ̄ku or “to agree with/accept with/take side with” (source: Linus Otronyi)
Matumbi: niu’bi’lyali or “believe / trust / rely (on)” and imani or “religious faith” (from Arabic īmān [إيما]) (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
Ebira: “place one’s liver on something” (source: Scholz /Scholz 2015, p. 60)
Barí: a word related to standing in a hammock. Bruce Olson (1972, p. 159f.) tells this story — click or tap here to read more)
One evening, though, Bobby began to ask questions. We were sitting around a fire. The light flickered over him. His face was serious.
‘How can I walk on Jesus’ trail?’ he asked. ‘No Motilone [speakers of Barí] has ever done it. It’s a new thing. There is no other Motilone to tell how to do it.’
I remembered the problems I had had as a boy, how it sometimes appeared impossible to keep on believing in Jesus when my family and friends were so opposed to my commitment. That was what Bobby was going through.
‘Bobby,’ I said, ‘do you remember my first Festival of the Arrows, the first time I had seen all the Motilones gathered to sing their song?’ The festival was the most important ceremony in the Motilone culture.
He nodded. The fire flared up momentarily and I could see his eyes, staring intently at me.
‘Do you remember that I was afraid to climb in the high hammocks to sing, for fear that the rope would break? And I told you that I would sing only if I could have one foot in the hammock and one foot on the ground?’
‘Yes, Bruchko.’
‘And what did you say to me?’
He laughed. ‘I told you you had to have both feet in the hammock. ‘You have to be suspended,’ I said.’
‘Yes,’ I said. ‘You have to be suspended. That is how it is when you follow Jesus, Bobby. No man can tell you how to walk His trail. Only Jesus can. But to find out you have to tie your hammock strings into Him, and be suspended in God.’
Bobby said nothing. The fire danced in his eyes. Then he stood up and walked off into the darkness.
The next day he came to me. ‘Bruchko,’ he said, ‘I want to tie my hammock strings into Jesus Christ. But how can I? I can’t see Him or touch Him.’
‘You have talked to spirits, haven’t you?’
‘Oh,’ he said. ‘I see now.’
The next day he had a big grin on his face. ‘Bruchko, I’ve tied my hammock strings into Jesus. Now I speak a new language.’
I didn’t understand what he meant. ‘Have you learned some of the Spanish I speak?’
He laughed, a clean, sweet laugh. ‘No, Bruchko, I speak a new language.’
Then I understood. To a Motilone, language is life. If Bobby had a new life, he had a new way of speaking. His speech would be Christ-oriented.
Awabakal: ngurruliko: “to know, to perceive by the ear” (as distinct from knowing by sight or by touch — source: Lake, p. 70) (click or tap here to read more)
“[The missionary translator] Lancelot Threlkeld learned that Awabakal, like many Australian languages, made no distinction between knowing and believing. Of course the distinction only needs to be made where there are rival systems of knowing. The Awabakal language expressed a seamless world. But as the stress on ‘belief’ itself suggests, Christianity has always existed in pluralist settings. Conversion involves deep conviction, not just intellectual assent or understanding. (…) Translating such texts posed a great challenge in Australia. Threlkeld and [his indigenous colleague] Biraban debated the possibilities at length. In the end they opted not to introduce a new term for belief, but to use the Awabakal ngurruliko, meaning ‘to know, to perceive by the ear,’ as distinct from knowing by sight or by touch.”
Language in southern Nigeria: a word based on the idiom “lose feathers.” Randy Groff in Wycliffe Bible Translators 2016, p. 65 explains (click or tap here to read more):
What does losing feathers have to do with faith? [The translator] explained that there is a species of bird in his area that, upon hatching its eggs, loses its feathers. During this molting phase, the mother bird is no longer able to fly away from the nest and look for food for her hungry hatchlings. She has to remain in the nest where she and her babies are completely dependent upon the male bird to bring them food. Without the diligent, dependable work of the male bird, the mother and babies would all die. This scenario was the basis for the word for faith in his language.
Teribe: mär: “pick one thing and one thing only” (source: Andy Keener)
Tiv: na jighjigh: “give trust” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
Luba-Katanga: Twi tabilo: “echo” (click or tap here to read more)
“Luba-Katanga word for ‘Faith’ in its New Testament connotation is Twi tabilo. This word means ‘echo,’ and the way in which it came to be adapted to the New Testament meaning gives a very good idea of the way in which the translator goes to work. One day a missionary was on a journey through wild and mountainous country. At midday he called his African porters to halt, and as they lay resting in the shade from the merciless heat of the sun. an African picked up a stone and sent it ricocheting down the mountain-side into the ravine below. After some seconds the hollow silence was broken by a plunging, splashing sound from the depths of the dark river-bed. As the echo died away the African said in a wondering whisper ‘Twi tabilo, listen to it.’ So was a precious word captured for the service of the Gospel in its Luba Christian form. Twi tabilo — ‘faith which is the echo of God’s voice in the depths of human sinful hearts, awakened by God Himself, the answer to his own importunate call.’ The faith that is called into being by the divine initiative, God’s own gift to the responsive heart! (Source: Wilfred Bradnock in The Bible Translator 1953, p. 49ff. )
J.A. van Roy (in The Bible Translator 1972, p. 418ff. ) discusses how a translation of “faith” in a an earlier translation into Venda created difficult perceptions of the concept of faith (click or tap here):
The Venda term u tenda, lutendo. This term corresponds to the terms ho dumela (Southern Sotho), and ku pfumela (Tsonga) that have been used in these translations of the Bible, and means “to assent,” “to agree to a suggestion.” It is important to understand this term in the context of the character of the people who use it.
The way in which the Venda use this term reveals much about the priority of interpersonal relationships among them. They place a much higher priority on responding in the way they think they are expected to respond than on telling the truth. Smooth interpersonal relationships, especially with a dominant individual or group, take precedence over everything else.
It is therefore regarded as bad form to refuse directly when asked for something one does not in fact intend to give. The correct way is to agree, u tenda, and then forget about it or find some excuse for not keeping to the agreement. Thus u tenda does not necessarily convey the information that one means what one says. One can tenda verbally while heartily disagreeing with the statement made or having no intention whatsoever to carry out what one has just promised to do. This is not regarded as dishonesty, but is a matter of politeness.
The term u sokou tenda, “to consent reluctantly,” is often used for expressing the fatalistic attitude of the Venda in the face of misfortune or force which he is unable to resist.
The form lutendo was introduced by missionaries to express “faith.”
According to the rules of derivations and their meanings in the lu-class, it should mean “the habit of readily consenting to everything.” But since it is a coined word which does not have a clearly defined set of meanings in everyday speech, it has acquired in church language a meaning of “steadfastness in the Christian life.” Una lutendo means something like “he is steadfast in the face of persecution.” It is quite clear that the term u tenda has no element of “trust” in it. (…)
In “The Christian Minister” of July 1969 we find the following statement about faith by Albert N. Martin: “We must never forget that one of the great issues which the Reformers brought into focus was that faith was something more than an ‘assensus,’ a mere nodding of the head to the body of truth presented by the church as ‘the faith.’ The Reformers set forth the biblical concept that faith was ‘fiducia.’ They made plain that saving faith involved trust, commitment, a trust and commitment involving the whole man with the truth which was believed and with the Christ who was the focus of that truth. The time has come when we need to spell this out clearly in categorical statements so that people will realize that a mere nodding of assent to the doctrines that they are exposed to is not the essence of saving faith. They need to be brought to the understanding that saving faith involves the commitment of the whole man to the whole Christ, as Prophet, Priest and King as he is set forth in the gospel.”
We quote at length from this article because what Martin says of the current concept of faith in the Church is even to a greater extent true of the Venda Church, and because the terms used for communicating that concept in the Venda Bible cannot be expected to communicate anything more than “a mere nodding of assent”. I have during many years of evangelistic work hardly ever come across a Venda who, when confronted with the gospel, would not say, Ndi khou tenda, “I admit the truth of what you say.” What they really mean when saying this amounts to, “I believe that God exists, and I have no objection to the fact that he exists. I suppose that the rest of what you are talking about is also true.” They would often add, Ndi sa tendi hani-hani? “Just imagine my not believing such an obvious fact!” To the experienced evangelist this is a clear indication that his message is rejected in so far as it has been understood at all! To get a negative answer, one would have to press on for a promise that the “convert” will attend the baptism class and come to church on Sundays, and even then he will most probably just tenda in order to get rid of the evangelist, whether he intends to come or not. Isn’t that what u tenda means? So when an inexperienced and gullible white man ventures out on an evangelistic campaign with great enthusiasm, and with great rejoicing returns with a list of hundreds of names of persons who “believed”, he should not afterwards blame the Venda when only one tenth of those who were supposed to be converts actually turn up for baptismal instruction.
Moreover, it is not surprising at all that one often comes across church members of many years’ standing who do not have any assurance of their salvation or even realise that it is possible to have that assurance. They are vhatendi, “consenters.” They have consented to a new way of life, to abandoning (some of) the old customs. Lutendo means to them at most some steadfastness in that new way of life.
The concept of faith in religion is strange to Africa. It is an essential part of a religion of revelation such as Christianity or Islam, but not of a naturalistic religion such as Venda religion, in which not faith and belief are important, but ritual, and not so much the content of the word as the power of it.
The terms employed in the Venda Bible for this vital Christian concept have done nothing to effect a change in the approach of the Venda to religion.
It is a pity that not only in the Venda translation has this been the case, but in all the other Southern Bantu languages. In the Nguni languages the term ukukholwa, “to believe a fact,” has been used for pisteuo, and ukholo, the deverbative of ukukholwa, for pistis. In some of the older Protestant translations in Zulu, but not in the new translation, the term ithemba, “trust”, has been used.
Some languages, including Santali, have two terms — like English (see above) — to differentiate a noun from a verb form. Biswạs is used for “faith,” whereas pạtiạu for “believe.” R.M. Macphail (in The Bible Translator 1961, p. 36ff. ) explains this choice: “While there is little difference between the meaning and use of the two in everyday Santali, in which any word may be used as a verb, we felt that in this way we enriched the translation while making a useful distinction, roughly corresponding to that between ‘faith’ and ‘to believe’ in English.”
Likewise, in Noongar, koort-karni or “heart truth” is used for the noun (“faith”) and djinang-karni or “see true” for the verb (“believe”) (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
The Greek that is translated in English as “Law” or “law” is translated in Mairasi as oro nasinggiei or “prohibited things” (source: Enggavoter 2004) and in Noongar with a capitalized form of the term for “words” (Warrinya) (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
In Yucateco the phrase that is used for “law” is “ordered-word” (for “commandment,” it is “spoken-word”) (source: Nida 1947, p. 198) and in Central Tarahumara it is “writing-command.” (wsource: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
In these two verses, Paul expands the contrast between faith and law. His argument is as follows: since he who is put right with God through faith shall live, and since the Law demands “doing” rather than “faith,” therefore it is very clear that no man is put right with God by means of the Law.
It is clear is literally “it is evident.” The Greek construction suggests the introduction of additional argument for Paul’s position as expressed in verse 10 (Phillips “it is made still plainer”; New American Bible “it should be obvious”; Twentieth Century “again, it is evident”). This may be rendered in some languages as “anyone can see,” or “surely one can realize.”
Put right with God is literally “justified.” Here, as in other letters of Paul, this expression has as its main component God’s activity in putting man into a right relationship with himself. The passive expression no one is put right with God may be changed into an active form by saying “God puts no one right with himself.” It must be made clear that the reflexive “himself” refers to God, not to the person.
By means of the Law is an expression of means, but in a number of languages the Law itself cannot be the means of performing this kind of activity. It may be necessary to expand this phrase into a clause of cause and to introduce the verb “obey,” since it is really not the Law itself but obedience to the Law which is the means Paul is speaking about. Accordingly, one may say, “No one is put right with God because he does what the Law requires.”
The scripture says is not in the Greek text, but since the quotation that follows is from scripture, Good News Translation marks it accordingly (compare New English Bible “we read,” Jerusalem Bible “we are told”). There are two ways of rendering the quotation: either “the just shall live by faith” (TEV margin, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Phillips), or “the just through faith shall live” (Good News Translation text, New English Bible, Revised Standard Version). The quotation is from Habakkuk 2.4 (quoted by Paul also in Rom 1.17).
The person who is put right with God translates a noun (literally, “the righteous one”). Some translations take this in an ethical sense (New American Bible “the just man”; various versions “the righteous man”), while others, including Good News Translation, interpret it in the sense of the Greek verb “justify,” and therefore understand Paul to be referring to a man who has been put right with God, rather than to a morally upright person.
In the same way that by means of the Law must often be expanded to mean “because one obeys the laws,” it may also be necessary to amplify the phrase through faith as “because one trusts in God.”
The phrase shall live should not be rendered in such a way as to mean mere continued existence. It is important to employ a verb here which will suggest a higher quality of life. In some languages this may be equivalent to “shall really live.”
But expresses the contrast between the Law and faith. Has nothing to do with faith is literally “is not of faith.” Accordingly, there are various ways of rendering it. Some translations take it as saying that one does not need faith in order to follow the Law or that the law does not depend on faith (compare New American Bible; also Revised Standard Version “the law does not rest on faith”; Moffatt “the law is not based on faith”). Other translations interpret it as referring to the definite distinction between the Law and faith, their complete dissimilarity and lack of relation to each other, as does Good News Translation (also Phillips “the law is not a matter of faith,” New English Bible “now law is not at all a matter of having faith”).
The statement But the Law has nothing to do with faith is very succinct, for the Law in this context refers not primarily to regulations as such but to a person’s obedience to the Law. Similarly, faith is not to be understood as an abstract term, but must be related to one’s actual trust and confidence in God. This sentence, therefore, may be rendered as “But when a person obeys the Law, that is not at all the same as when one trusts God.” One may even say, in some instances, “But obeying the Law is not related to trusting God.”
As the scripture says is once again added to signal to the reader that what follows is a quotation from the Old Testament. It is from Leviticus 18.5 (quoted by Paul also in Rom 10.5) and is taken to be antithetical to the quotation from Habakkuk 2.4. The two quotations spell out the two ways of obtaining life, one by faith and the other by doing. The former is primarily an attitude of trust and confidence in God; the latter is not concerned with attitudes, but simply with performance or the lack of it.
Does everything the Law requires is literally “does them.” It is clear that “them” refers not to the Law in general (Law in the first part of the verse is singular), but to the requirements of the Law (Jerusalem Bible “the man who practises these precepts”; Knox “the man who carries out the commandments”). Everything the Law requires may be rendered as “everything the laws talk about,” or “everything the laws say that a person must do.”
The final phrase in the Greek text of this verse, namely, “by them,” is in a sense a duplication of the thought of the clause whoever does … requires.
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 .
The law, however, is not based on faith: In 3:12, Paul developed his argument that a person who is righteous by faith will live. He did this by stating that faith and the law do not go together. Paul introduced this contrast between “faith” (in 3:11b) and the law (in 3:12) by beginning this verse with a Greek conjunction that the Berean Standard Bible translates as however. Here are some other ways to introduce this contrast:
But (English Standard Version) -or-
Yet (New King James Version)
Some English versions, such as the New International Version and the New Living Translation (2004), do not explicitly show this contrast with a conjunction. In some languages, no conjunction will be necessary here either. Connect 3:12a to 3:11b in a way that is natural in your language.
The law…is not based on faith: The word law refers to “obeying/keeping the law in order to be made right with God.” So this clause means that obeying the law is not a matter of faith/believing/trusting in Jesus. As the next clause says, obeying the law is a matter of what a person “does.” The law focuses only on doing things. The law excludes faith.
Some other ways to translate this clause are:
The law does not depend on faith (New American Bible) -or-
?obeying? the law is not a matter of ?having? faith ?in God/Jesus? . -or-
Belief does not go together with ?obeying? the law. -or-
There is a difference between obeying the law and believing.
faith: See faith, Meaning 1 in the Glossary.
3:12b
on the contrary: There is a contrast between 3:12a and 3:12b–c. The contrast is between what the law is not (it is not of faith), and what the law is (it is doing/obeying the commandments). Languages have different ways to indicate this negative-positive type of contrast. Some of the ways are:
• With the conjunction “but.”
• With a conjunction other than “but.” This is a common way in English to show this type of contrast. For example:
rather (English Standard Version) -or-
on the contrary (Berean Standard Bible, New International Version) -or-
Instead (Good News Translation)
• With no conjunction. For example:
a The Law isn’t based on faith. c It promises life only to people who obey its commands. (Contemporary English Version)
In some languages, it may be necessary to include some implicit information to make this contrast more understandable. For example:
On the contrary, ?it is a matter of doing/obeying? -or-
Instead ?of faith,? ? the law is based on? ?obedience to it?
3:12c
Verse 3:12c is a quote from Leviticus 18:5. In some languages, it may be good to make explicit that this is a quote from the Old Testament. For example:
as the scripture says (Good News Translation)
Paul quoted this Scripture to support his statement that obeying the law does not include faith. The law has always focused on what a person does.
The man who does these things will live by them: The phrase does these things means “does/obeys the commandments in the law of Moses.” The phrase will live by them means “will live well because of obeying these laws.” People who diligently obeyed all the laws of Moses would find a good life both here on earth and eternally.
Some other ways to translate this quote are:
He who does/obeys ?all? the commandments will have ?a good? life because he obeyed them. -or-
Whoever does everything the Law requires will live. (Good News Translation) -or-
A person who obeys these things will live because of them. (New Century Version) -or-
If you wish to find life by obeying the law, you must obey all of its commands. (New Living Translation (1996))
The man who: This is a way to refer to people in general. You should use a natural way in your language to make a general statement.
Some possible ways are:
The person/people who -or-
Anyone who -or-
You who -or-
He who
will live by them: The Greek phrase that the Berean Standard Bible translates as will live by them means “will live well because of obeying these laws.” In the context of Leviticus, these words probably meant that people who diligently obeyed all the laws would find a good life here on earth. They would have peace within their community, and God would bless them. But this phrase could also refer to an eternal life with God.
Some other ways to translate this phrase are:
will live because of them (New Century Version) -or-
will live because of the laws he obeys (God’s Word) -or-
will have a good life because he did/obeyed all the laws
As with the words “will live” in 3:11b, languages have many ways to talk about will live here. Some other ways that languages may translate this phrase are:
will sit/stay well because he obeyed the laws -or-
will walk well because of obeying the laws
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.