27Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself.
The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “high priest” in English is translated as “the ruler of the priests of our nation” in Yatzachi Zapotec, as “very great priest” in Chol (source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.), as “first over the priests” in Ayutla Mixtec, and “chief of the priests” in Desano (source for this and one above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.).
In Uma it is translated as “Big Priest,” in Western Bukidnon Manobo as “high sacrificer,” and in Tagbanwa as “Most-important Priest of God.” (See here.)
In Khoekhoe the translation for “high priest” is only capitalized when it refers to Jesus (as is Hebrews 2:17 et al.). (Source: project-specific notes in Paratext)
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.'”
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)
Martin Ehrensvärd, one of the translators for the DanishBibelen 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. )
Following are a number of back-translations of Hebrews 7:27:
Uma: “He is not like other big priests. Those priests, every day they offer worship-gifts, first worship-gifts that pay-for their own sins first, and then they offer worship-gifts that pay-for the sins of the crowds/people. Yesus, just once he offered a worship-gift to God, when he offered himself to be killed. That worship-gift of his does not need to be repeated again ever.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “He is not like the other high priests. They have to sacrifice to God every day to take away their own sins first and then the sins of the people. But Isa sacrificed only once to take away the sins of all mankind and that is what he sacrificed – himself.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “He’s not like those former high priests, because it’s not necessary that He offer sacrifice every day like they did. For every day they offer sacrifice; they first sacrifice because of their own sins and then they sacrifice because of the sins of the people. But as for Jesus, by contrast, His sacrifice was done only once and He never repeated it. He did this when He allowed Himself to be killed on the cross.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Jesus is not like the other highest priests who daily need to have that which they offer to God for their sins and then they also sacrifice-an-offering for the sins of the collective-people. Because Jesus, he offered himself once only to God for the sins of the collective-people. That death of his, it suffices forever.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “He is really not like those others who were also called Most-important Priest in the past. For as for them, every day they would make sacrifices with which to ask-for forgiveness for sin, first their own sin and then the sin also of other people. But, as for this Jesus, once only he made himself like a sacrifice as-a-means of asking for forgiveness for the sin of people. It is not necessary to repeat or yet add to it.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Now concerning the high priests of the Jews, day after day they offer sacrifices to God for their own sins. After that they offer sacrifices to clear the sins of the rest of the people. But this Jesus gave himself up to be killed. He became a sacrifice for the people forever. Yet just one time he died.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
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, nashitoge-rare-ru (成し遂げられる) or “accomplish/obtain” is used.
Other is implied, as in verse 23. The background of this verse is the order of worship on the Day of Atonement; see Leviticus 9.7; 16.6, 15 (where “Aaron” means the High Priest); see also Hebrews 5.3. This, however, was an annual, not a daily event. If other is added in translation (as in Good News Translation), it may be necessary to choose between the meanings “different in kind” and “different as individuals.” In this context the meaning “different in kind” is appropriate.
This verse includes a double contrast which should be kept in translation: (a) every day … once and for all; (b) offer sacrifices … offered himself.
He does not need to offer sacrifices may be expressed as “it is not necessary for him to offer sacrifices” or “… to sacrifice.” In some languages to offer sacrifices may be rendered as “to kill gifts for God” or “to kill animals as gifts to God.”
In rendering for his own sins, it is essential to avoid a wording which would suggest “for the benefit of his sins” in the sense of “to enhance his sins.” It is also important to avoid a rendering of for which will suggest “to pay for,” as though sacrifices were made in order to pay for sins and thus to enjoy them.
Good News Translation‘s second sentence in the Greek is literally “for this he did once-for-all, having offered himself.” “For” introduces the reason for the statement in the first part of the verse. “This,” in the light of 4.15, cannot mean “offered sacrifice both for his own sins and those of the people.” It means “offered sacrifice for the people.” This is the basis of Good News Bible‘s rearrangement.
Offered (9.28; 13.15; James 2.21; 1 Peter 1.5) is often used of “offering up” or “carrying up” a sacrifice to an altar. The meaning here is that of offering a sacrifice “up” to God, but this is not emphasized and Good News Translation leaves it implicit. This theme will be developed in chapter 9.
Once and for all and “once” (compare 6.4) in the Greek are keywords in the letter: “once and for all” 9.12 ; 10.10; “once” 9.7, 26-28; 10.2; 12.26, 27. Once and for all is an English idiom which means the same as “once,” but it is more emphatic, like the Greek word which it translates. It means “one time for all times,” not “for all people.”
When he offered himself may be rendered as “when he gave himself to God” or “when he gave himself to God as a sacrifice.”
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 .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.