truth

The Greek, Latin and Hebrew that is usually translated in English as “truth” is translated in Luchazi with vusunga: “the quality of being straight” (source: E. Pearson in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 160ff. ), in Obolo as atikọ or “good/correct talk” (source: Enene Enene), and in Ekari as maakodo bokouto or “enormous truth” (esp. in John 14:6 and 17; bokouto — “enormous” — is being used as an attribute for abstract nouns to denote that they are of God [see also here]; source: Marion Doble in The Bible Translator 1963, p. 37ff. ).

The translation committee of the Malay “Good News Bible” (Alkitab Berita Baik, see here ) wrestled with the translation of “truth” in the Gospel of John (for more information click or tap here):

“Our Malay Committee also concluded that ‘truth’ as used in the Gospel of John was used either of God himself, or of God’s revelation of himself, or in an extended sense as a reference to those who had responded to God’s self-disclosure. In John 8:32 the New Malay translation reads ‘You will know the truth about God, and the truth about God will make you free.’ In John 8:44 this meaning is brought out by translating, ‘He has never been on the side of God, because there is no truth in him.’ Accordingly Jesus ‘tells the truth about God’ in 8:45, 46 (see also 16:7 and 8:37a). Then, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’ becomes ‘I am the one who leads men to God, the one who reveals who and what God is, and the one who gives men life.” At 3:21 the translation reads ” … whoever obeys the truth, that is God himself, comes to the light …’; 16:13a appears as ‘he will lead you into the full truth about God’; and in 18:37 Jesus affirms ‘I came into the world to reveal the truth about God, and whoever obeys God listens to me.’ On this basis also 1:14 was translated ‘we saw his glory, the glory which he had as the Father’s only Son. Through him God has completely revealed himself (truth) and his love for us (grace)’; and 1:17 appears as ‘God gave the law through Moses; but through Jesus Christ he has completely revealed himself (truth) and his love for us (grace).'” (Source: Barclay Newman in The Bible Translator 1974, p. 432ff. )

Helen Evans (in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 40ff. ) tells of the translation into Kui which usually is “true-thing.” In some instances however, such as in the second part of John 17:17 (“your word is truth” in English), the use of “true-thing” indicated that there might be other occasions when it’s not true, so here the translation was a a form of “pure, holy.”

sacrifice

The Greek that is translated as “sacrifice” in English is translated in Huba as hatǝmachi or “shoot misfortune.”

David Frank (in this blog post ) explains: “How is it that ‘shoot misfortune’ comes to mean sacrifice, I wanted to know? Here is the story: It is a traditional term. Whenever there were persistent problems such as a drought, or a rash of sickness or death, the king (or his religious advisor) would set aside a day and call on everyone to prepare food, such as the traditional mash made from sorghum, or perhaps even goat. The food had to be put together outside. The king or his religious advisor would give an address stating what the problem was and what they were doing about it. Then an elder representing the people would take a handful of that food and throw it, probably repeating that action several times, until it was considered to be enough to atone for all the misfortune they had been having. With this action he was ‘shooting (or casting off) misfortune’ to restore well-being to his people. As he threw the food, he would say that this is to remove the misfortune that had fallen on his people, and everybody would respond by saying aɗǝmja, ‘let it be so.’ People could eat some of this food, but they could not bring the food into their houses, because that would mean that they were bringing misfortune into their house. There is still a minority of people in this linguistic and cultural group that practices the traditional religion, but the shooting of misfortune is no longer practiced, and the term ‘shoot misfortune’ is used now in Bible translation to refer to offering a sacrifice. Aɗǝmja is how they translate ‘amen.'”

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Heb. 10:26)

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 inclusive form (including the writer and the readers of this letter).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

sin

The Hebrew 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.” Likewise, many translations contain the “connotation of moral responsibility.” Loma has (for certain types of sin) “leaving the road” (which “implies a definite standard, the transgression of which is sin”) or Navajo uses “that which is off to the side.” (Source: Bratcher / Nida). In Toraja-Sa’dan the translation is kasalan, which originally meant “transgression of a religious or moral rule” and has shifted its meaning in the context of the Bible to “transgression of God’s commandments.” (Source: H. van der Veen in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 21ff. ).

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 Kaingang, the translation is “break God’s word” and in Sandawe the original meaning of the Greek term (see above) is perfectly reflected with “miss the mark.” (Source: Ursula Wiesemann in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 36ff., 43)

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.

complete verse (Hebrews 10:26)

Following are a number of back-translations of Hebrews 10:26:

  • Uma: “Don’t let-go-of your faith, relatives. For if we have heard and know the true news from the Lord, yet after that we deliberately reject him, there no longer [emphatic] is any other worship-gift that can pay-for our sin.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “For if we (dual) know already the true teaching but yet purposely sin, na, there really no longer is a sacrifice that God will accept that could yet remove our (incl.) sins.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “But if we understand already what the true doctrine is, but purposely go on always doing evil, there is no longer any sacrifice which God will accept that will remove our sins.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Because if we have already come-to-know the truth concerning Cristo and we still deliberately sin in/by our turning-our -backs-on him, there is no other offering that can remove our sins.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “For if the truth concerning the death of Jesus has now really pierced our minds/inner-being, but we still regard- it -as-unimportant in that we deliberately still continue our doing of sin, there really is now no other thing-to-sacrifice with-which-to-obtain-forgiveness for our sin.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “But concerning the person who already knows what is the true word and yet determines to live doing evil, afterwards then there is no sacrifice which will clear the sin he has done.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Hebrews 10:26

There is no longer any sacrifice, that is, “for us.” The writer does not mean that there was once such a sacrifice, but that it exists no longer. This possible misunderstanding occurs because Good News Translation reverses the two halves of the sentence. One solution would be to translate “If deliberately [emphasized] we go on sinning after we have come to know the truth, there is no other sacrifice left which can deal with our sin.” Verse 27 would then begin as a new sentence, “As it is, however….”

“Sin-offerings” are the sacrifices to take away sins mentioned in 10.6.

In place of the English construction with an anticipatory particle such as there, one may use a somewhat shorter initial clause such as “No sacrifice can any longer take away our sins” or “… cause our sins to be forgiven.”

The keyword of this passage is purposely, which is the first word in the Greek sentence; Knox has “wilfully”; Barclay and Translator’s New Testament use “deliberately.” On the distinction between deliberate and accidental breaking of the Law, see Numbers 15.25-31. The “sinning” is not only deliberate but repeated or continued, as go on sinning shows; similarly New English Bible “if we persist in sin.” If we purposely go on sinning may be rendered as “if we decide we want to go on sinning,” “if we make our plans so that we can go on sinning,” or “… continue to sin.”

After the truth has been made known to us: Good News Translation is right to emphasize that “the receiving of the truth” is an event, probably associated with baptism; compare 6.4-5 and 10.22. The truth indicates Christian teaching, not “truth” in any general philosophical sense. Phillips‘ “after we have known and accepted the truth” seems on first reading rather more than the text says, but “accepted” may be implied by the fact that knowledge in the Bible includes experience. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “after we have gotten to know the truth.”

The passive expression has been made known in the clause after the truth has been made known to us may seem rather weak in some languages, since it might suggest merely “after the truth has been told to us.” A more satisfactory expression may be “after we have known what the truth really is” or even “after we have known what the truth of the Good News is.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .