Cherokee: “putting one’s hand up to someone” (source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 16)
In Bauzi “swear” can be translated in various ways. In Hebrews 6:13, for instance, it is translated with “bones break apart and decisively speak.” (“No bones are literally broken but by saying ‘break bones’ it is like people swear by someone else in this case it is in relation to a rotting corpse’ bones falling apart. If you ‘break bones’ so to speak when you make an utterance, it is a true utterance.”) In other passages, such as in Matthew 26:72, it’s translated with an expression that implies taking ashes (“if a person wants everyone to know that he is telling the truth about a matter, he reaches down into the fireplace, scoops up some ashes and throws them while saying ‘I was not the one who did that.'”). So in Matthew 26:72 the Bauzi text is: “. . . Peter took ashes and defended himself saying, ‘I don’t know that Nazareth person.'” (Source: David Briley)
The Greek, Hebrew and Ge’ez that is typically translated as “eternity,” “forever,” or “forever and ever” in English are translated in Mairasi as “mashed out infinitely.” Lloyd Peckham explains: “Bark cloth required pounding. It got longer and wider as it got pounded. Similarly, life gets pounded or mashed to lengthen it into infinity. Tubers also get mashed into the standard way of serving the staple food, like the fufu of Uganda, or like poi of Hawaii. It spreads out into infinity.” (Source: Lloyd Peckham)
In Lisu the phrase “forever and ever” is translated as ꓕꓲꓽ ꓞꓲꓼ ꓕꓲ ꓑ — thi tsi thi pa, verbatim translated as “one – lifetime – one – world.” This construction follows a traditional four-couplet construct in oral Lisu poetry that is usually in the form ABAC or ABCB. (Source: Arrington 2020, p. 57f.)
In Makonde it is often translated as navyaka or “years and years.” (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
The concepts of God swearing or making a vow have to be translated in Kwere as “(making a) promise” because for a vow you have to have a witness. (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Following are a number of back-translations of Hebrews 7:21:
Uma: “But when Yesus was appointed [lifted] to be priest, there was [emphatic] an oath of God. God said to him like this: ‘I the Lord God swear, and I do not change my words: You are a priest forever.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “But Isa was made priest because God swore to him, he said, ‘I am God, I swear that you are priest forever, and I will really not change my thoughts about this.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “However, as for Jesus by contrast, God made Him a promise for there is a written word of God which says, ‘As for me, who am God, I promised you that you would be made a priest whose priesthood would be without end, and this will certainly come true.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Another advantage (lit. distinguishing-place) of Jesus’ priesthood is that there is something that God swore to him when he became a priest, because God said, ‘I the Lord God, I swear that you (sing.) are a priest forever. My mind will absolutely never-be-changed.’ But when the descendants of Levi became priests, God didn’t swear anything.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “But in the setting up of Jesus God said to him, ‘I God am now making a vow and my mind/thinking does not constantly change. As for you, you will be a priest without ending.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “All the rest of the priests have the work passed on to them. But concerning this Jesus Christ, he is the only one to whom God promised all the words which are written in the Holy Book where God said: ‘I am God and it is true what I say. This word which I tell you cannot be changed by anyone. And now, you are priest forever. You take over the work at which the priest Melchizedek worked,’ he said to him.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed.
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 Translator2002, 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.”
The Greek in the referenced verses that is typically translated as “age,” “(for)ever / eternity / eternal / permanent,” “of old / long ago” in English is translated in the German translation by Fridolin Stier (1989) consistenty as “world (or: “cosmic”) time” (Weltzeit).
Sarah Ruden (2021, p. lxii) explains the complexities of the translation of aiōn: “Trickiest of all [the words relating to time] is aion, most simply an ‘age’ or ‘era’ but sometimes denoting either the whole present world or the whole world to come. The same word can allude to all the limits of material existence (or to dangerous worldly distractions in particular), or to their absence in the eternal age to come. Looking forward, especially to ‘ages of ages’ (in the pattern of ‘King of Kings’), the meaning is ‘eternity.’”
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, na-rare-ru (なられる) or “become” is used.
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 are (され) 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, omoinaos-are-ru (思い直される) or “relent” is used.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.