complete verse (Hebrews 2:6)

Following are a number of back-translations of Hebrews 2:6:

  • Uma: “That authority God will give to mankind. In the Holy Book there are words that make this clear, they sound like this: ‘O Lord God, what are men/mankind that you even consider them? What is the child of mankind that you notice him?” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “But that is whom he chose – mankind. It is written hep in the holy-book, it says, ‘O God, why do you think about mankind? Why do you care for them and (what’s more) they are just mankind?” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “but rather, He chose people. For there is a written word of God which we can find in the writings long ago, which says, ‘As for You, God, why is it that You don’t forget about humanity? He’s just a human, so why do You take good care of him?” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Because that’s the message (lit. what-it’s-talking-about) of what God caused-to-be-written which says, ‘Oh God, what indeed is the status of people so that you (sing.) think-about and show-mercy/favor to them?” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Really not, because this has already been testified about in one of the writings of the past which says, ‘Whatever are people here in this world that you (sing.) consider/are-concerned-for them, God? They are just people yet you are always looking after them.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “This word which is written in the Holy Book tells who it is that God determined to rule the new world. The word which is written says: ‘Listen, my God, how come it is that you think about people. Why is it that you overflowingly put them on your heart?” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

For the Old Testament quote, see Psalm 8:5Psalm 8:7.

addressing God

Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed.

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight

Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or modern English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.

As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator 2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.

In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.

Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”

In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.

Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking.” (Source Philip Noss)

In the most recent Manchu translation of 1835 (a revision of an earlier edition from 1822), God is never addressed with a pronoun but with “father” (ama /ᠠᠮᠠ) instead. Chengcheng Liu (in this post on the Cambridge Centre for Chinese Theology blog ) explains: “In Manchu tradition, as in Chinese etiquette, second-person pronouns could be considered disrespectful when speaking to superiors or spiritual beings. Manchu Shamanist prayers avoided si [‘you’] and sini [‘your’] for this very reason. To use them for God would be, in Lipovzoff’s [one of the two translators] words, ‘the most uncouth and indecent way to speak to the Almighty — as if He were a servant or slave.’ There was also a grammatical problem. In Manchu, si and sini could refer to both singular and plural subjects. For a faith that insisted on the singularity of God, this was potentially confusing. By contrast, repeating ama removed any ambiguity.”

In Dutch, Afrikaans, Gronings, and Western Frisian translations, God is always addressed with the formal pronoun.

See also formal pronoun: disciples addressing Jesus, female second person singular pronoun in Psalms.

Japanese benefactives (kaerimite)

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 choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. Here, kaerimite (顧みて) or “think/care” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”

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

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

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, todome-rare-ru (留められる) or “keep” is used.

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

Translation commentary on Hebrews 2:6

Instead (literally “but”) strongly marks the contrast with verse 5.

As it is said somewhere in the Scriptures is literally “affirms somewhere someone saying.” This clause is a curiously vague way of introducing a psalm attributed to David. In the Scriptures is clearly implied. “Affirms” is related to the Greek word translated as added his witness in verse 4. The writer is continuing to pile up evidence for the supremacy of Christ.

As it is said somewhere in the Scriptures must be rendered in some languages as “as it is written somewhere in the Scriptures,” since “saying” can only be related directly to speech, and anything involved in writing must be mentioned as such. However, the passive expression it is said must often be made active; for example, “as someone has written somewhere in the holy writings.”

It is rare that one can use for Scriptures merely an expression “writings,” for the reference is unlikely to be clear. For that reason the expression “holy writings” is often necessary.

The first two lines of the quotation are in close parallel (see discussion on 1.7). Man and mere man (literally “son of man”) mean the same, and the Greek expressions for think of (literally “remember”) and care for are closer to each other than are their English equivalents. In biblical thought, when God “remembered” or thought of someone, something happened to that person; that is, God’s thought always resulted in action. The problem for the translator is to make it clear that the two lines mean the same, but to do so without using monotonous repetition. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch chooses the radical solution, adopted in many places in the Good News Translation Old Testament, of combining the two lines: “What is man, that you ask about him?” In any language which does not use poetic parallelism, translators should consider whether the two lines can be combined without loss of meaning.

In the psalm, as in Ezekiel 2.1, “man” and “son of man” mean the same thing. However, in the Gospels Jesus often uses the phrase “Son of man” as an indirect way of speaking of himself. Hebrews does not use “son of man” except in this quotation. The question as to whether the author understands “son of man” in the quotation to refer to Christ is dealt with in the discussion of “to him” in verses 8-9 (see below).

In a number of languages it is impossible to introduce the expression O God in the position which it has in Good News Translation, namely, What is man, O God, that you should think of him. A direct vocative such as O God must generally occur first in a sentence, or occur next to the word for you; for example, “God, what is man that you should think of him?” or “What is man that you, God, should think of him?”

In this context man refers to human beings in general—certainly not to any particular male—and therefore it may be far more satisfactory in many languages to translate “What are people that you, God, should think of them?” or “… pay attention to them?” or “… be concerned with them?”

It may be even necessary to indicate something of the significance of the question by amplifying the implication of the interrogative pronoun What; for example, “How important are people that you, God, should be concerned with them?”

It may be important in some languages to make clear the nature of this rhetorical question. This may be done by employing the phrase mere man as a kind of response to the double question; for example, “What are people that you, God, should be concerned with them or should take care of them? They are nothing more than people.”

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 .