26for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.
The Greek that is translated in English as “remove sin” or similar is translated in Mandara as varam.
Karen Weaver explains: “Another example of how Mandara words words have been incorporated to communicate Biblical truth is the word varam. When a person dies, his family observes a period of mourning. At the end of this time, a feast is held and a pig is killed by the priest, which is called varam. This word varam carries the concept of freeing people from bondage or guilt. The [translation team] used this same word when translating Hebrews 9:26c.
“Even church members had always thought Christianity and tradition were separate. But once the translation team began incorporating words from the local culture, even those who had shown no interest in the translation began to accept it, and to see it as important and relevant to their lives.
“Now the people say, “The Mandara New Testament has made the connection between God and our culture. We thought the church came to eliminate our way of life. Now we know that God’s message is contained in our culture.”
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 9:26:
Uma: “For if it were like that, certainly from the creation of the world many times he would have undergone suffering to the point of dying. So, in this time close to the Kiama Day, he has appeared just one time in this world to wipe-away the sins of mankind by his giving of himself to be killed.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Because if he would do that often, that would mean that he suffered and died often since the world was created. But this is what he did, he came here only once in a human body when the world was coming close to the end and he took-away/removed the sin of mankind because he sacrificed his own body.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “because if that were necessary, beginning from the creation of the world, He would have to suffer dying many times. But that is not necessary because what He did in this time when the world would soon come to an end is: He appeared so that He might remove our (incl.) sins by offering His own body. And He did this only once.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Because if of course he had done that, he ought to have suffered many-times beginning from the creation of the world. But the truth of it is, he came only once to this earth in these last days in order to remove sin by means of his offering of himself.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “For if Cristo needed to constantly shed his blood would that not mean that he would have had to die over and over again since the creation of the world? But it was not like that but rather, now/today, at this time of the fulfilling of all that was being done in the past, once only he came-down here to the world in order to erase the sin of people. What he erased it with was his own blood which he shed on that one occasion.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “If it were that he kept on dying over again, then all the way back to when the world was made, he would have been dying over and over. But what has actually happened is that when it was going on to end these days, then Christ arrived here and gave up himself to be put to death. but only one time he died in order to become the sacrifice forever. He paid for all the sins of people.” (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 choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
Here, arawarete (現れて) or “appear” 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. )
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, arawarete (現れて) or “appear” 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. )
The main contrast is between the many Old Testament sacrifices and the one sacrifice of Christ. There is also a contrast of time, as in 1.1-2, between the creation of the world and when all ages of time are nearing the end. The exact meaning of when all ages … are nearing the end is not clear, either in the Greek or in Good News Translation. It is literally “at (or, near) the end of the ages.” This expression is not used anywhere else in the New Testament, though Matthew (13.39, 40, 49; 24.3; 28.20) uses the same word for “end” with “age” in the singular. “The end of the ages” may be a poetic equivalent of this, but with the same meaning. The related verb often has the meaning “fulfill” or “accomplish”; so Bijbel in Gewone Taal‘s “at the high point of history” is possible, as are Knox‘s “at the moment when history reached its fulfillment” and Barclay‘s “at the consummation of history.” However, the writer and his contemporaries believed that they were living near the end of time (see 10.25); hence the contrast with the creation of the world.
The expression for then he would have had to suffer implies a condition contrary to fact; for example, “for if he had done that, he would have had to suffer,” or “for if he had done that, it would have been necessary for him to suffer.” Sometimes this kind of condition contrary to fact may be expressed as “for if he did that (and he didn’t), then it would be necessary for him to suffer.”
Ever since the creation of the world may be expressed as “ever since the world was first created” or “ever since the time God created the world.”
The main contrast marked by Instead (Revised Standard Version “But”) is between the annual sacrifices of the Old Testament Day of Atonement (verse 7) and the one sacrifice of Christ (6.4; compare once and for all in 7.27). Instead also marks a secondary contrast, repeated from verses 7-8 but not emphasized here, with the High Priest’s offering of the blood of an animal in verse 25.
Some commentators think that now in verse 26 is used simply to reinforce the contrast and does not refer to time at all. This view is followed by Revised Standard Version (“as it is”), Moffatt, Knox, New English Bible, Barclay, and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible; all common language translations, Phillips, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, and Translator’s New Testament have now. The contrast is probably between the present and Old Testament times. In favor of the translation “as it is,” one can say (a) that the same expression is used in 8.6, where Revised Standard Version translates it as “as it is” (see also RSV, 2.8 and 11.16); (b) the writer has used now in verse 24, and tends to give words different meanings when he repeats them; (c) now is slightly awkward with the past tense he has appeared. However, none of these arguments is conclusive. (a) The same expression is used in 12.26 with a clear reference to time (Good News Translation, Revised Standard Versionnow); (b) the writer uses once in the same sense in verses 26, 27 and 28 (the Greek is the same); and (c) the writer does not contrast the time at which he writes with the time of Christ’s death; the contrast is rather between the present and Old Testament times.
It may be almost impossible to translate literally when all ages of time are nearing the end. In the first place, it may be impossible to speak of ages “nearing” something. Furthermore, it may be necessary to specify what is involved in the end. An equivalent of now when all ages of time are nearing the end may be “now when we are near the end of all the ages” or “now when we are living in the last days of all the ages.” The expression all ages may be rendered as “all periods of time,” “all long successions of days,” or “all long series of years.”
Suffer: a few manuscripts have “die,” which is a correct interpretation of suffer in this context (compare 2.9).
He has appeared once and for all may be rendered as “he has come just once” or “he has come once and will not do so again.”
To remove sin may be expressed as “to cause people to have no guilt” or “to cause sins to be forgiven.”
On sacrifice, see 5.1 and 7.27. Through the sacrifice of himself may be expressed as means; for example, “by sacrificing himself,” “by giving himself over to die,” or “by causing (or, allowing) himself to be killed like 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.