covenant

The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin that are translated as “covenant” in English are translated in a variety of ways. Here are some (back-) translations:

  • Mossi: “helping promise”
  • Vai: “a thing-time-bind” (i.e. “an arrangement agreed upon for a period of time”)
  • Loma (Liberia): “agreement”
  • Northwestern Dinka: “agreement which is tied up” (i.e. “secure and binding”)
  • Chol: “a word which is left”
  • Huastec: “a broken-off word” (“based on the concept of ‘breaking off a word’ and leaving it with the person with whom an agreement has been reached”)
  • Tetelcingo Nahuatl: “a death command” (i.e. “a special term for testament”)
  • Piro: “a promised word”
  • Eastern Krahn: “a word between”
  • Yaka: “promise that brings together” (source for this and all above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Nabak: alakŋaŋ or “tying the knot” (source: Fabian 2013, p. 156)
  • Nyamwezi: ilagano: “agreement, contract, covenant, promise” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Q’anjob’al: “put mouths equal” (representing agreement) (source: Newberry and Kittie Cox in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 91ff. )
  • Manikion, Indonesian: “God’s promise” (source: Daud Soesilo)
  • Natügu: nzesz’tikr drtwr: “oneness of mind” (source: Brenda Boerger in Beerle-Moor / Voinov, p. 164)
  • Tagalog: tipan: mutual promising on the part of two persons agreeing to do something (also has a romantic touch and denotes something secretive) (source: G. Henry Waterman in The Bible Translator 1960, p. 24ff. )
  • Tagbanwa: “initiated-agreement” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Guhu-Samane: “The concept [in Mark 14:24 and Matthew 16:28] is not easy, but the ritual freeing of a fruit and nut preserve does afford some reference. Thus, ‘As they were drinking he said to them, ‘On behalf of many this poro provision [poro is the traditional religion] of my blood is released.’ (…) God is here seen as the great benefactor and man the grateful recipient.” (Source: Ernest Richert in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. )
Law (2013, p. 95) writes about how the Ancient Greek Septuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew berith was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments (click or tap here to read more):

“Right from the start we witness the influence of the Septuagint on the earliest expressions of the Christian faith. In the New Testament, Jesus speaks of his blood being a kaine diatheke, a ‘new covenant.’ The covenant is elucidated in Hebrews 8:8-12 and other texts, but it was preserved in the words of Jesus with this language in Luke 22:20 when at the Last Supper Jesus said, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Jesus’s blood was to provide the grounds for the ‘new covenant,’ in contrast to the old one his disciples knew from the Jewish scriptures (e.g., Jeremiah 31:31-34). Thus, the earliest Christians accepted the Jewish Scriptures as prophecies about Jesus and in time began to call the collection the ‘Old Testament’ and the writings about Jesus and early Christianity the ‘New Testament,’ since ‘testament’ was another word for ‘covenant.’ The covenant promises of God (berith in Hebrew) were translated in the Septuagint with the word diatheke. In classical Greek diatheke had meant ‘last will, testament,’ but in the Septuagint it is the chosen equivalent for God’s covenant with his people. The author of Hebrews plays on the double meaning, and when Luke records Jesus’ announcement at the Last Supper that his blood was instituting a ‘new covenant,’ or a ‘new testament,’ he is using the language in an explicit contrast with the old covenant, found in the Jewish scriptures. Soon, the writings that would eventually be chosen to make up the texts about the life and teachings of Jesus and the earliest expression of the Christian faith would be called the New Testament. This very distinction between the Old and New Testaments is based on the Septuagint’s language.”

See also establish (covenant) and covenant (book).

Translation commentary on Hosea 10:4

They utter mere words, with empty oaths they make covenants …: In order to make a clear and meaningful translation of this verse, translators must decide who is the referent for the pronoun They. The context of 10.3 and the actions in this verse, such as making covenants (Good News Translation “treaties”) and administering judgment (Good News Translation “Justice”), make it probable that this pronoun refers to the kings of Israel, suggesting that the “king” in 10.3 should be interpreted in a generic sense, representing all kings of Israel (so Septuagint, which uses a singular pronoun to refer back to the king in verse 3 in a general sense). To make the reference to the Israelite kings clear, we can begin with “Our kings [or, The kings] utter empty words….”

These first two lines of this verse are composed of three pairs of words in Hebrew, which are literally “They speak words, to swear falsely, to make covenant.” The adjective mere is understood by Revised Standard Version as implied by the context. The Hebrew favors three actions: speaking words, swearing falsely, and making covenants. It is possible that the false oaths qualify the covenants (so Revised Standard Version), but that is not clearly expressed in the Hebrew. The effect of these three pairs of Hebrew words is a series of sharp, brief complaints. Mays represents them in three short lines as a bitter response to the question at the end of 10.3: what can the king do?

mouth words—
swear falsely—
make a covenant—

Jerusalem Bible does something similar with “Words, words! False oaths! Alliances!” However, Jerusalem Bible emends the Hebrew verb for utter (so also the Septuagint), which is not necessary.

Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation enclose the latter part of 10.3 in quotation marks as the future confession of the people of Israel. These translations do not enclose this verse in quotation marks, and thereby make it a comment by the prophet Hosea. Some recent commentators include this verse in quotation marks as part of the confession of the people of Israel, as does Mays, and this interpretation does tie this verse more closely with 10.3. Translators are free to exercise their own judgment as to where best to mark the end of the quotation. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch handles this verse as the prophet’s response to the question he imagines the people will ask at the end of 10.3: “ ‘But what can a king really do for us?’ 4 That I can tell you: make speeches, swear oaths and make covenants….”

So judgment springs up like poisonous weeds in the furrows of the field: So renders the Hebrew waw conjunction (literally “And” [New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh]). Here it may be translated as a logical connector, such as “so” (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version) or “therefore” (New International Version, NET Bible). We prefer to leave it untranslated (so Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling), since it simply introduces one more evil in Israel. The interpretation of the Hebrew word translated judgment has been disputed, but its common meaning should be retained, namely, “justice.” Since “justice” is compared with poisonous weeds, it has become something evil (compare Amos 5.7; 6.12). Good News Translation expresses this evil sense by saying “Justice has become injustice,” that is, what should be justice is perverted and unjust. The context suggests that this injustice should be seen coming from the useless kings. Bijbel in Gewone Taal says “Through them [the kings] more and more injustice enters Israel.”

Some versions interpret judgment as “punishment,” but this idea does not fit with the comparison to poisonous weeds. Others translate it “litigation” (New Revised Standard Version, New English Bible), “lawsuits” (New International Version), or “court trials,” but this meaning wrongly emphasizes the multiplying of weeds and does not express the inner evil nature implied in poisonous weeds.

The Hebrew word for poisonous weeds probably refers to an herb called hemlock, a plant whose root, stems, and leaves are all poisonous. In most places this specific plant will not be known, so the generic expression poisonous plants may be used. Furrows are grooves made in a field by a plow, so Good News Translation renders in the furrows of the field as “in a plowed field.” There is something sad and tragic about the figure poisonous weeds in the furrows of the field. The field has been plowed to raise a good crop of grain, but instead poisonous weeds grow up, symbolizing injustice. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch says “And what is called justice is as deadly as poisonous weeds in a grain field,” and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “And justice degenerates into poison weeds, breaking out on the furrows of the fields.”

A translation model for this verse is:

• The kings, they just speak words,
they take false oaths,
they just make promises.
What they call justice [or, Their justice] is like poisonous weeds
spreading in the furrows of the field.

Quoted with permission from Dorn, Louis & van Steenbergen, Gerrit. A Handbook on Hosea. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2020. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .