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. )
Chichewa: pangano. This word can also be translated as a contract, agreement, or a treaty between two parties. In Chewa culture, two people or groups enter into an agreement to help each other in times of need. When entering into an agreement, parties look at the mutual benefits which will be gained. The agreement terms are mostly kept as a secret between the parties and the witnesses involved. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Law (2013, p. 95) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘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.”
Vultures and eagles were much more common in the ancient world than they are today. In fact since the end of World War II in 1945 the world’s population of vultures and eagles has been reduced by over sixty percent. This is due mainly to a) calcium deficiencies as a result of eating animals in which there were high concentrations of the insecticide DDT, b) eating poisoned rats, and c) the reduction in the amount of carrion due to both the disappearance of wild animals since the invention of the modern rifle, and the modern garbage disposal systems.
Click or tap here for the rest of this entry in United Bible Societies’ All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible
Nesher: As is the case with many Hebrew bird names, the word nesher refers both to one particular bird and to a general class of birds. It seems likely that nesher refers specifically to the largest of the local birds of prey, namely the Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus, but since this word also refers to large birds of prey, it also has a general reference to all or any of them. Thus this category of large birds probably also includes the Lappet-faced Vulture Torgos tracheliotus negevensis, (now fairly uncommon, but previously very numerous), the Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, the Imperial Eagle Aquila heleiaca, the Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis, and possibly the Black or Verreaux’s Eagle Aquila verreauxii. The last mentioned bird has only been breeding in modern Israel in the last thirty-five years, but some ornithologists believe that it may have lived there in ancient times, since it is associated closely with the hyrax, its favorite prey.
‘Ozniyah: There is considerable doubt about the meaning of this word. Its meaning is basically derived from its position in the list of unclean birds, and this makes a type of vulture more likely than the osprey. Since the Black Vulture Aegypius monachus is slightly smaller than the lappet-faced vulture and the bearded vulture, this seems to be the most likely candidate. It probably represents eagles and buzzards of the same size as itself, that is, some of the eagles mentioned above. In modern Hebrew ‘ozniyah is the name for the lappet-faced and black vultures.
‘Ayit: There is general agreement that the word ‘ayit in the Bible is a word that includes in its meaning both eagles and vultures. However, it probably does not include smaller birds of prey, such as the hawk, sparrow hawk, or smaller falcons. In the contexts in which it occurs it is clear that carrion-eating birds of prey are meant, rather than all birds of prey. Therefore the English expression “birds of prey” is too inclusive, but the term “carrion birds” is probably more correct.
The word ‘ayit is usually taken to be derived from a Hebrew root meaning “to scream”, hence “the screamer”, and is obviously a bird in Genesis 15:11 and other passages. However, there are also scholars who relate ‘ayit to a different Hebrew root meaning “to attack greedily”.
Peres, a word derived from a Hebrew root meaning “to tear apart” or “to break”, probably refers to the Bearded Vulture or Lammergeir Gypaëtus barbatus, which looks much like an eagle. It probably represents a grouping of eagles and vultures slightly smaller than those mentioned above under nesher and would include the Black-breasted Snake Eagle (also called the Short-toed Eagle or the Black-chested Harrier Eagle) Circaetus gallicus (alternatively Circaetus pectoralus) and the Booted Eagle Hieraeetus pennatus, as well as one or two others.
Racham refers to something that is black and white. The position of the name in the list of unclean birds would indicate that it is a waterside bird. This narrows the choice to two possibilities, the Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus and the Osprey Pandion haliatus. In modern Hebrew racham is the name for the Egyptian vulture.
The Egyptian vulture is smaller than the other vultures mentioned above. It has long, untidy, light orange-brown feathers on its neck and head, with a bare yellow face and yellow beak that is longer and less hooked than most vultures. The rest of the body and wings are white with black wing tips. In flight the body and the front half of the wings are white, with the wing tips and the back half of the wings black.
While this vulture does eat carrion, it is usually the scraps dropped by larger vultures, since its beak is not strong enough to tear skin and meat easily. It usually scavenges scraps on beaches or rubbish dumps and eats the eggs of ground-nesting waterside birds such as plovers, sandpipers, curlews, and others, which it breaks by knocking them with a large stone.
Aetos: This is the usual Greek word for any kind of eagle.
Aquila: This is the usual Latin word for any kind of eagle.
True eagles have feathers on the lower part of their legs, but vultures, snake-eagles, hawks, and others usually have no such feathers. Vultures have slightly longer beaks and longer necks than eagles, and their heads and necks are usually either bald or have sparse down covering them rather than proper feathers.
Griffon vulture: This is the largest of the Gyps vultures, having a wingspan of about 2.5 meters (8 feet), and weighing up to 10 kilograms (22 pounds). It has a thick hooked black beak. Its head and neck are covered in fine down, and it always looks as though it is frowning. It has a tuft of feathers on its back between its shoulders. The head, neck, and chest are gray and fawn, and its back is dark brown with darker feathers on the edges of its wings. When it is soaring, its body and the leading edges of its wings appear light brown with a broad dark band on the trailing edge of the wings. Like all true vultures, it has featherless legs.
Griffons live in fairly large groups and roost and nest together on high rock ledges, and, like most other vultures of large size, they have to wait until mid-morning when there is warm air rising up from the ground before they can fly. They then soar in spirals, going higher and higher.
They have very specialized eyes that enable them to see great distances. A proverb quoted in the Talmud says, “A vulture in Babylon sees a carcass in Israel.” They keep watch to find any dead or dying animals, and at the same time they keep track of other vultures flying nearby. They soar fairly slowly, without beating their wings. As soon as one stops spiraling and heads toward its prey, it gathers speed quickly in a shallow dive, still not beating its wings, but often reaching high speeds. The Hebrew name nesher may reflect the swishing sound made by its wings when it is flying this fast. Other vultures will notice this movement and will start to follow.
In African countries where both griffon and lappet-faced vultures live, griffons usually arrive at a carcass in fairly large numbers, with the lappet-faced vultures arriving in pairs. Often a dead cow will attract twenty griffons or more and perhaps four lappet-faced vultures. It is likely that this ratio was the case in ancient Israel too.
The griffons attack the stomach and other soft parts of the carcass and thrust their heads deep into the body to eat the liver and other soft organs before starting on the softer meat, eating “from the inside out.” They eat very quickly and can consume a kilogram (2 pounds) of meat in about two minutes. After gorging themselves it is difficult for them to fly, and they need to run and hop along the ground before getting airborne. If there is no obvious danger, they prefer to remain on the ground or to perch on logs or in nearby trees after eating.
Lappet-faced vulture: This vulture is almost as big as the griffon in terms of height and wingspan but has a lighter build. They live singly or in pairs in the Negev and roost and nest in the tops of flat-topped trees such as acacias. The lappet-faced vulture has a yellowish beak, which is thicker and stronger than that of the griffon, and this enables it to eat skin, sinews, and tough meat. The head, face, and neck are covered with bare red skin. The head and neck have thick wrinkles. The rest of the body is dark brown or black with white thighs and shoulders. When they are soaring they appear to be uniformly black except for a thin white streak on the leading edge of the wings, with the white thighs (usually referred to by bird watchers as their “white pants”) clearly visible.
At a carcass they feed “from the outside in,” tearing the skin and eating it before starting on the meat. Lappet-faced vultures are very aggressive and dominate the griffons at a carcass they are sharing. Although carrion is their main food, they also sometimes kill their own prey, mainly small mammals such as young gazelles or hares.
Black vulture: The black vulture, as its name suggests, is black all over apart from the bare head and neck, which are a bluish gray. When viewed from below it appears completely black.
Large eagles: The golden, imperial, and Verreaux’s eagles mentioned above are all very large and have a wingspan of at least 2 meters (6 feet). They are not mainly scavengers, but may occasionally join vultures at a carcass. Generally their prey is small mammals, such as baby gazelles, lambs, hyraxes, hares, and young ibexes, as well as occasional game birds such as partridges and doves.
Bearded vulture: Also known as the lammergeir, this bird is unique among vultures, as it has feathered legs like an eagle. It is smaller than the vultures mentioned above. Its head, neck, and body are an orange-brown, and it has a black stripe running from the back of its head, through its eye to the beak, where it ends in a short bristly black beard on both sides of the beak. Its back and wings are dark brown. In flight it is easily recognized by its coloring and its large diamond shaped tail. It usually feeds when other vultures have eaten, and it has the unique habit of carrying bones high into the air and then dropping them onto a large rock to break them so that it can eat the marrow and the bone fragments. It will use the same rock for this purpose for many years.
Both eagles and vultures are associated with large size and great strength. Especially important is their ability to fly great distances at high speed, without even beating their wings. Both Egyptian and Assyrian deities had the eagle or vulture as their symbol, and this, as well as their diet of meat, meant that these birds were “unclean” to the Jews. The famous mummy of Tutankhamen, the young Egyptian king, was found with a large collar made of gold and colored glass adorning his neck and shoulders, in the form of a flying vulture representing the goddess Nekhbet. The eagle in Scripture is also a symbol of protection, and in Deuteronomy the eagle is a metaphor for God.
As carrion-eating birds of prey, eagles and vultures symbolized death in battle, in which the corpses were not buried. They are listed among the unclean birds.
The vulture or eagle was a symbol of healthy, long life. In actual fact these birds can live for a great many years. One fairly reliable report from Austria refers to an eagle kept in captivity for 104 years. Some scholars relate the Hebrew association of long life and the eagle to the ancient Arabian myth about the phoenix, usually portrayed as some sort of eagle, which flew to the sun every five hundred years, was consumed by the sun’s fire, and emerged reborn from its own ashes.
By the time of the New Testament the eagle, besides the symbolism mentioned above, had also become a symbol of the power of the Roman Empire.
The context will usually indicate whether vultures or eagles are intended by the author. When there is reference to speed and swooping down on the prey, the eagle is intended, but when there is reference to eating dead bodies, the vulture is intended. When the text speaks of flying high or nesting in safety on high cliffs, either eagles or vultures fit the context.
Three linguistic situations are possible: a) Languages in which the same word is used for both vultures and eagles (for example, Lisu, Lahu, and other Tibeto-Burman languages). Here there is no need to differentiate between them, except where both Hebrew words appear together. b) Languages in which there are no generic words for vultures or eagles, but each individual subspecies has its own name (as with many southeastern Bantu languages). In these cases it is best to choose the biggest vulture or eagle for nesher and a slightly smaller one for peres. c) Languages in which there are two generic words, one for vultures and another for eagles (as is the case in English). Here the context will determine the choice.
Care should be taken in those contexts where the nest is referred to as high on a cliff face, since some species of vulture and eagle nest in trees. In these cases a cliff-nesting alternative should be chosen, even if it is a smaller bird of prey.
‘Ozniyah: Probably a word for the black vulture or a type of medium-sized eagle. An expression meaning “small vulture” is probably the best equivalent.
Another name for an eagle or vulture of similar size as the black vulture can be used in the lists of unclean birds for ‘ozniyah, or it can be included, along with peres, in a general expression covering both fairly large vultures and eagles.
‘Ayit: In languages that do not have a single word including both eagles and vultures, but where both types of bird are found, such as in Africa and the Middle East, it is better to use a simple phrase meaning “eagles and vultures.” A phrase such as “scavenging birds of prey,” or simply “vultures,” could also be used.
True vultures are not found in the Americas or Australasia, but a word for “buzzards,” or, in the case of the Americas, “condors” can substitute for “vultures.” Elsewhere a phrase such as “eagles that eat dead things” or a borrowed word can be used.
Peres: The bearded vulture is found in the mountainous regions of southern Europe, Central and South Asia, and eastern and southern Africa. The medium-sized short-toed eagle is found throughout Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The booted eagle is found all over Europe, Asia, and Africa. Elsewhere, the name for a medium-sized vulture or eagle can be used to translate peres.
In Africa there are many vultures closely related to the griffon vulture, and the lappet-faced vulture is common in most areas of the African continent. The African griffons include the White-backed Vulture Gyps africanus(alternately Gyps bengalensis), which nests in trees, the Cape Vulture Gyps coprotheres, and Ruppell’s Vulture Gyps ruppelli. The local word for any of these would be a good equivalent in contexts where the text refers to vultures.
Griffons are also found in central and eastern Europe and on the Indian sub-continent. The condors of Latin America and California would be local equivalents. The Wedge-tailed Eagle Aquila audax of Australia would be an equivalent there.
Golden and imperial eagles are found in most of western Europe as well as Israel.
African equivalents of the golden and imperial eagles would be the Black or Verreaux’s Eagle Aquila verreauxii and the Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus.
The Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis migrates across Israel to as far south as the northern parts of South Africa. It is also found in eastern Europe, Kazakhstan, Central Asia, and South Asia.
In North America the Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus would be an equivalent in some contexts of the Hebrew nesher.
German Luther translation: Posaune, today: “trombone,” originally with the meaning of a wind instrument made from cow horn (from Latin bucina [bovi- / “cow” + the root of cano / “sing”]. Incidentally, bucina is also used in the Latin Vulgate translation). By the time of Luther’s translation it referred to the natural trumpet or a fanfare trumpet (see also trumpet). Once the meaning morphed to “trombone” in the 19th century, trombone ensembles started to play a central role in Protestant German churches and do so to the present day. In 2016, “Posaunenchöre” became added to the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage list . (Note that Exodus 19:13 is the only exception in the Luther Bible. From the 1956 revision on, Widderhorn or “ram’s horn” is used here) (source: Zetzsche)
Description: The horn was a wind instrument made from the horn of an animal, usually a male sheep.
Usage: The animal horn was softened so that it could be shaped. The point of the horn was cut off to leave a small opening through which the user blew. The vibration of the lips produced the sound.
The ram’s horn served two general purposes:
1. It was blown in certain religious contexts, not as musical accompaniment to worship but as a signal for important events. Some of these events were the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, the Day of Atonement, the bringing of the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem, and the coronation of kings.
2. It also served as a signal or alarm when war was approaching. Such references are particularly common in the prophetic books, when the prophets are calling the people to repent (Hosea 5:8; 8:1; Joel 2:1; 2:15; Amos 3:6).
Translation: In many passages the purpose of the ram’s horn called shofar in Hebrew was to sound an alarm. This will be easy to express in those cultures where the horns of animals are used as musical instruments to give signals to large groups of people. In other cultures it may be possible to find another instrument that is used for an equivalent purpose. In some languages, for example, instruments such as bells or drums are the warnings for war. Some translations have transliterated the word shofar. Unless the instrument is well known, such a borrowing should normally be accompanied by a footnote or a glossary entry.
In some passages it will be necessary to expand the translation in order to indicate that the blowing of the ram’s horn was not just for music; for example, in Ezekiel 7:14Contemporary English Version has “A signal has been blown on the trumpet,” and the GermanContemporary English Version says “An alarm is sounded” [elsewhere, the same German version refers to the horns as Kriegshörner or “war horns.”]
Man blowing ram’s horn (source: Knowles, revised by Bass (c) British and Foreign Bible Society 1994)
The translation of the tetragrammaton (YHWH or יהוה) is easily the most often discussed issue in Bible translation. This is exemplified by the fact that there is virtually no translation of the Bible — regardless of language — where the position of the respective translator or translation team on how to translate the name of God into the respective language is not clearly stated in the preface or introduction.
Click or tap here to read about the different ways the tetragrammaton is and has been translated
The literature on this topic is overwhelming, both as far as the meaning of YHWH and the translation of it by itself and in combination with other terms (including Elohim and Adonai). There is no reason or room to rehash those discussions. Aside frtaom various insightful translations of YHWH into various languages (see below), what’s of interest in the context of this tool are official and semi-official statements regarding the translation by Bible translation agencies and churches. These include the 1992 statement by United Bible Societies’ “Names of God” Study Group (see The Bible Translator 1992, p. 403-407 ) or the “Letter to the Bishops’ Conference on ‘The Name of God'” by the Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Discriplina Sacramentorum of 2008 (see here et al.).
In summary, the UBS study group gives six different options on how to translate YHWH: 1) transliterate (some form of “Yahweh” or “Jehovah” if this is an already established term); 2) translate (along the lines of kurios — κύριος in the Septuagint); 3) translate the meaning of YHWH; 4) use a culture-specific name; 5) translate Elohim and YHWH in the same way; or 6) use a combination of any of these options.
The official Catholic directive states that for liturgical purposes YHWH is to be translated as an equivalent of Kurios (“Lord”) unless when appearing in combination with Elohim (“God”) or Adonai (“lord”), in which case it’s to be translated with “God.”
In the following collection of examples, any of the above-mentioned strategies are used.
Use of Typographical Means to Offset the Name of God
A large number of Bible translations in many Western European languages have used a similar strategy to translate YHWH as an equivalent of Kurios or Adonai (“lord” in Greek in Hebrew) but have used either small caps or all caps to denote these occurrences as an equivalent to a proper name. Here are some examples:
None of the European languages have found a “cultural-linguistic equivalent” with the possible exception of Eternal or l’Éternel (see below).
The rendering of the translation of YHWH in bold (and uppercase) characters is for instance used in Guhu-Samane: QOBEROBA (a term of address for a respected person and also connotes “forever”) (for “forever”, see below under Translations of the Name of God) and the upper-casing in Bible translations in several other languages in Papua New Guinea:
In Cebuano (Ang Pulong sa Dios edition, 2010) and Hiligaynon (all versions), Ginoo, a typographical variant of Ginoo (“Lord”) is used. Bible translation consultant Kermit Titrud (SIL): “‘Yahweh’ is too close to Yahwa, their word for ‘Satan.’ We were afraid that in the pulpits readers might misread ‘Yahweh’ and say ‘Yahwa.’ So we went with the tradition found in most English translations. Ginoo for ‘Yahweh’ and Ginoo for ‘adonai.'”
In languages where capitalization is not a typographical option, other options are available and used, such as in Japanese, where the generic term shu 主 for “Lord” is bolded in some translations to offset its meaning (Source: Omanson, p. 17).
In Pattani Malay, the word for “Lord” is underlined: ربي. (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
A graphical way of representation beyond typography was used by André Chouraqui in his French La Bible hebraique et le Nouveau Testament (publ. 1974-1977) for which he superimposed adonai and Elohim over (the French rendition) of the tetragrammaton:
(Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff.; see also tempt God / put God to the test)
Translations of the Name of God
A translation of YHWH with a rendering of the meaning of “Eternal” was done in English by James Moffatt (between 1926 and 1935) with Eternal, The Voice translation with Eternal One (2012), in French versions as L’ÉTERNEL by J. F. Ostervald in 1904 or l’Éternel by L. Segond (1910-1938, not in more recent revisions) and Zadoc Kahn (1964) (for the French translation, see also LORD of hosts), in Esperanto as “la Eternulo,” and in Obolo as Okumugwem: “The Ever-Living” (source: Enene Enene). In francophone Africa, translations of l’Éternel are widely used, due to the wide use of Segond’s early editions (see above). Examples include Nancere (Nandjéré) with Kumuekerteri, Ngambay (Ngambaï) with Njesigənea̰, Sar with Kɔ́ɔ̄ɓē, Mbay (Mbaï) with Bïraþe, Kim with Bage ɗiŋnedin, or Lélé uses Gojɛnɛkirɛkindiy (verbatim: “who remains for his eyes”). (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
Similarly and at the same time expanding its meaning, the Nzima translation of 1998 translated YHWH as Ɛdεnkεma, the “Eternal All-Powerful Creator and Sustainer” (Source: David Ekem in The Bible Translator 2005, p. 72ff. ).
“Creator” is also used in Kazakh (Zharatkhan [Жаратқан]), Karakalpak (Zharatkhan [Жаратқан], sometimes in combination with Iyeg [Ийег] — “Master”), and Kirghiz (Zharatkhan [Жаратқан], likewise in combination with “Master” or Ege [Эге]). (Source: David Gray).
Nepali, Bengali, and Hindi are all derived from Sanskrit and have (eventually) all found similar translations of YHWH. In Bengali “God” is translated as Ishwar (ঈশ্বর) (widely used in Hindu scriptures, where it’s used as a title, usually associated with “Siva”) and YHWH as Shodaphrobhu (সদাপ্রভু) — “Eternal Lord”; in NepaliYHWH is translated as Paramaprabhu (परमप्रभु)– “Supreme Lord”; and Hindi translates YHWH as Phrabu (प्रभु) — “Lord.” In earlier translations all three languages used transliterations of Jehovah or Yahweh. (Source: B. Rai in The Bible Translator 1992, p. 443ff. and Barrick, p. 124).
The influential German Jewish translation of Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig (between 1925 and 1961) translates YHWH in Exodus 3:15 with “Ich bin da” (“I exist” or “I am”) and in all other instances with pronouns in small caps (Er, Ihm, Ihn, Ich — “he,” “him,” “his,” “I”).
The Jewish orthodox English ArtScroll Tanach translation (publ. 2011) uses Hashem or “The Name”
In the Bavarian translation by Sturmibund (publ. 1998), it is translated as Trechtein or “Sovereign, Lord.” “Trechtein” is related to the obsolete English “drighten.” (Source: Zetzsche)
In Ge’ez, Tigrinya, and Amharic it is translated with Igziabeher (እግዚአብሔር) or “Ruler/Lord of the Nations/Peoples.” In Ge’ez Igziabeher is used for “God” as well, whereas in Tigrinya and Amharic it is often, but not always used for “God.” In a recent revision by Biblica (see here ), an attempt was made to use Igziabeher exclusively for occurrences of the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Bible, but after strong responses by the Christian community, a compromise was found by using Igziabeher in the first chapter of Genesis and changing it according to the Hebrew text elsewhere. (Source: Zetseat Fekadu)
Warlpiri uses Kaatu Jukurrarnu (Kaatu is a transcription of “God” and Jukurrarnu means “timelessness” and shares a root with jukurrpa — dreamings) (Source: Stephen Swartz, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. ).
The translation of YHWH into Weri with Aniak Tupup or “man of the holy house” intends “to maintain the Jewish practice of not uttering God’s name [with] the use of another vernacular phrase that signals that a ‘taboo’ name is being referred [which] could give a cue that would be recognizable in written or oral communication” (Source: P. King, The Bible Translator 2014, p. 195ff. ).
Aruamu translates it as Ikiavɨra Itir God or “Ever Present God” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Idakho-Isukha-Tiriki: Nyasaye Wuvunyali Muno or “God powerful great” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
Ruund uses Chinawej, a term that is otherwise used as a response of approval. Anna Lerbak (in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 84ff. ) tells the genesis of this term (click or tap to see an explanation):
“The name ‘Jehovah’ had been used in some contexts, but I had the feeling that it did not mean much to the people, and when I asked the pastors they all said it didn’t, and worse, it very often confused people, especially in the villages. During the conversation it was suggested that the name Chinawej be used in the place of ‘Jehovah’, and this met with immediate approval. A few days later I was working on a Psalm in which ‘Jehovah’ was used frequently, so I wrote Chinawej in its place and then read the Psalm to them. The response was about like this: “That is it, now people will understand, that is how Chinawej is. The Jews call God ‘Jehovah’, we call Him Chinawej, it is the same God. but we know Him as Chinawej as the Jews know Him as ‘Jehovah’ “. They often call God Chinawej in prayer, it seems to indicate warmth and intimacy.
The same word is used in two other ways. It is the name of a snake which never attacks human beings. And it is used as a response of approval. When told of something they are pleased to hear, something they find good, just, helpful, generous, they often respond by saying, Chinawej. When they call God Chinawej, it indicates that they think of Him as One Who is good and just and generous towards them. When it was suggested at the committee that we use Chinawej in place of ‘Jehovah’ it was accepted immediately and unanimously.
Ebira has Eneyimavara. Eneyimavara was created by merging a praise phrase that was only used for the traditional deity Ohomorihi (see here), that had become the word for the Christian God: ene e yi ma vara or “the one that never changes.” “The translators came to the agreement that this praise name that describes the unchangeableness of God is very close in meaning to the probable meaning of YHWH.” (Source: David O Moomo in Scriptura 88 (2005), p. 151ff. )
The Uzbek Bible uses the term Ega (Эга) — “master, owner” in various forms (including Egam / Эгам for “my Owner” or Egamiz / Эгамиз for “our Owner.” (Click or tap to see an explanation):
Jim Zvara (2019, p. 6) explains: “The Uzbek term ega means owner or master (‘master,’ in the historical context of an owner-slave relationship). By extension, it is natural for an Uzbek to speak to or refer to God as Egam (‘my owner’/’master’). In the Uzbek context to be God’s slave is a positive way of understanding one’s relation to him. It suggests that one is in a dependent and obedient relationship to God. The team felt that this relational connection and what it implies fits well with the concept of YHWH as the God who is in a covenant relationship with his people. In the Uzbek context, the choice of Ega was deemed to be the best balance of natural language with meaningful translation.”
The Seediq Bible translation team chose Utux Tmninun (“the weaving god”) for their translation of YHWH. (Click or tap to see a retelling of the process of how that decision was reached):
“(…) The Seediq team requested that we spend time with them on key terms. They had compiled a list of key terms that they wanted input on, and we went through the list item by item. The most important item was how to deal with the divine name. They had tentatively translated it as Yehoba, transliterated from Jehovah, but they were also aware that this transliteration may not be accurate, and they were keen to explore other options.
“We explored various alternatives. Were they interested in following the ancient Jewish practice of substituting ‘Lord’ for the divine name? Would capitalising the letters help? Would they be bold enough to use ‘Yahweh,’ following the opinion of most Old Testament scholars who regard this as the correct pronunciation? Was it feasible to adopt a mixed approach in dealing with the divine name (…)? Each option had its advantages as well as disadvantages.
“In the midst of the discussion, a participant said, ‘Our ancestors, as well as we today, always call God by the term Utux Tmninun. I suggest we use this term.’ The term Utux Tmninun in the Seediq culture means ‘the weaving God.’ In their culture, God is the weaver, the one who weaves life together. All the participants were excited about this proposal. They tried this term with all the composite terms that involve the divine name, and it seemed to work well, so they decided tentatively to adopt this term. After the workshop, the participants went back to their villages and sought feedback from the wider community, and eventually they confirmed the use of the term Utux Tmninun as the rendering of the divine name.
Translating the divine name as Utux Tmninun, the weaving God, is a creative solution. This term is viewed very positively in the Seediq community. It also correlates well with the concept of God as the creator (Gen. 1-2) and as the weaver who formed our inward parts and knit us together in our mothers’ wombs (Ps. 139:13). It also has the advantage of portraying God beyond the traditional masculine form.
“Some may argue that since names are usually transliterated, we should do the same with YHWH, most likely pronounced ‘Yahweh.’ Unfortunately, due to the influence of Chinese Union Version for almost one hundred years now, Chinese Christians only know God as Yehehua. Attempts to change the term Yehehua to Yahweh have not been successful. This is a reality that the Seediq Christians have to live with.
“Others may argue on theological grounds that YHWH is not only the creator, but also the God of the covenant, hence any attempt to substitute another term for YHWH will not do justice to the Hebrew text. In the case of the Seediq translation, there are significant similarities between Utux Tmninun and YHWH, though the terms are not identical. This is a reality translators often have to struggle with. Exact correspondence is hard to come by. Often it is a matter of approximation, give and take. Besides theological considerations, one has to deal with the constraints of past traditions (‘Jehovah,’ in this instance), the biblical cultures and one’s own culture, and audience acceptance. Hopefully, by using Utux Tmninun for YHWH, the Seediq term will be transformed and take on the aspect of the covenant God as well.” (Source: Yu Suee Yan, The Bible Translator 2015, p. 316ff. )
In Elhomwe it is translated as Apwiya, which also means “uncle” or “master” (source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Amele uses Tibud, the term for an important nature god, e.g., Amel tibud “lightning god,” Mim tibud “earthquake god.” (Source: John Roberts)
Nyankore: Nyakubaho or “the one who is from within itself” (source: Bühlmann 1950, p. 146)
For the interconessional translation into Chichewa (publ. 1999) the term Chauta (“Great-One-of-the-Bow”) was chosen for YHWH (Click or tap to see the detailed story):
“The name Chauta, literally ‘Great-One-of-the-Bow’, i.e. [is] either the rainbow (descriptively termed uta-wa-Leza ‘the-bow-of-God’) or, less likely, the hunter’s bow. And yet Chauta was also distinct from Mulungu [“God”] in that it has reference to the specific tribal deity of the Chewa people — the God who ‘owns’ yet also ‘belongs to’ them — and hence it carries additional positive emotive overtones. Although research indicated that in an ancient traditional setting, Chauta too was probably associated with the indigenous ancestral rain cult, in the Christian era it has been progressively generalized to encompass virtually all religious contexts in which God may be either appealed to, proclaimed, or praised. After prolonged deliberation, therefore, the translation committee determined Chauta to be the closest functional equivalent to YHWH of the Hebrew Scriptures. The choice of this name is not without its difficulties, however, and these were carefully considered by the Chewa committee. For example, the use of a more specific local term, as opposed to the generic Mulungu, carries a greater likelihood of bringing along with it certain senses, connotations, and situations that were (and no doubt still are) associated with the indigenous, pre-Christian system of worship. If these happened to remain strong in any contemporary sacred setting, then of course the dangers connected with conceptual syncretism might well arise. In the case of Chauta, however, it appeared that the process of positive Christian contextualization had already reached an advanced stage, that is, judging from the widespread use of this name in all aspects of religious life and practice. A more scholarly argument against Chauta takes the position that there is too great a female component associated with this term because it was traditionally applied (by figurative metonymy) to refer also to the ritual ‘wife of God’, i.e. the chief officiant at a traditional rain shrine and worship sanctuary. However, this usage seems to be quite remote, and most people questioned do not even recognize the connection anymore. Besides, in a matrilineal society such as the Chewa, it does not seem inappropriate to have this aspect of meaning lying in the background, particularly since it is not completely foreign to the notion of God in the Bible (cf. Ps. 36:7; 73:15; Isa. 49:14-15; Mt. 23:37). In terms of ‘connotative fit’ or emotive identification and appeal, there can be little doubt that the name Chauta is by far the closest natural equivalent to YHWH in the contemporary Chewa cultural and religious environment. This aspect of meaning was probably also utmost from the ancient Jewish perspective as well; in other words, “for them the associated meaning of this special name [YHWH], in terms of their history and culture, far outweighed any meaning it may have suggested because of its form or derivation”. To be sure, this ‘new’ divine name — that is, new as far as the Scriptures are concerned — may take some getting used to, especially in the formal setting of public worship. But this is not a foreign god whom we are talking about; rather, he is certainly by now regarded as the national deity of the Chewa nation. Chauta is the great God who for one reason or another ‘did not make himself known to them by his holy name, the LORD’ (Exod. 6:3), that is, in the prior translations of his Word into Chewa. He is, however, and always has been “a God who saves … the LORD (Chauta), our Lord, who rescues us from death” (Ps. 68:20, Good News Bible)!” (Source: Wendland 1998, 120f.; see also The Bible Translator 1992, 430ff. )
Transliteration of YHWH
A 12th century reading of the Masoretic vowel points around יהוה (יְהֹוָה) was interpreted to be pronounced as Yehowah from which Iehouah and Jehovah were derived. This was reflected in the English versions of Tyndale (publ. 1530) and the Geneva Bible (significantly based on Tyndale and publ. in 1560) and again the King James Version (Authorized Version) (publ. 1611) which all used Iehouah or Jehovah in 7 different verses in the Old Testament. The translators and editors of the American Standard Version (publ. 1901), a review of the King James Version used Jehovah for all appearances of the tetragrammaton something that the Spanish Reina-Valera (publ. 1602) had already done as well.
In English versions, Yahweh as a transliteration of the tetragrammaton is used by the Catholic Jerusalem Bible (publ. 1966), the Protestant Holman Christian Standard Bible (publ. 2004) and the Legacy Standard Bible (publ. 2021). The Catholic translation by Knox (publ. 1949) occasionally uses Javé, “to make it a Latin name, to match all the other names in the Old Testament.” (Source Knox 1949, p. 80)
Mandinka for instance uses Yawe for YHWH. “The use of Yawe for YHWH is good and may be a trendsetter in this part of Africa.” (Source: Rob Koops)
In a group of related languages in another part of Africa an interesting development from a transliteration to a indigenous translation can be shown: In the Nandi Bible (1938) Jehovah was used as a translation for YHWH. Kamuktaindet (“The Powerful One”) was used as a translation for Elohim (“God”). This was taken over by a translation into the macrolanguage Kalenjin (1969) (intended to include the closely related Keiyo, Kipsigis, Markweeta, Nandi, Okiek, Sabaot, Terik, and Tugen). Sabaot, Markweeta, Tugen and Okiek later wanted there own translations. Both Sabaot and Markweeta use the indigenous word for “Creator” (Yēyiin in Sabaot and Iriin in Markweeta) to translate Elohim and YHWH of the Old Testament and Theos of the New Testament. The Kalenjin Bible has recently been revised to cater to Keiyo, Kipsigis, Nandi and Terik, and this revision has completely dropped Jehovah in favour of Kamuktaindet. (Source: Iver Larsen)
Early translations into Gilbertese faced a problem when transliterating “Jehovah” (a form of “Jehovah” was first used in Spanish Bible translations in 1569 and 1602): “There are only thirteen letters in the Kiribati alphabet: A, E, I, O, U, M, N, NG, B, K, R, T (pronounced [s] when followed by ‘i’), W For instance, ‘Jehovah’ is rendered Iehova, but Kiribati speakers can only pronounce it as ‘Iowa,’ since the phonemes [h] and [v] do not exist in Kiribati.” (source: Joseph Hong, The Bible Translator 1994, p. 329ff. .)
In a recent edition of a Thai translation (Thai Standard Version, publ. 2011) a combination of translation and transliteration is used: phra’ ya(h)we (h) (พระยาห์เวห์) (“Divine Yawe”). (Source: Stephen Pattemore)
In Nyarafolo Senoufo the transliteration is Yewe which also means “the being one” or “he that is.” David DeGraaf (in: Notes on Translation 3/1999, p. 34ff.) explains: “Since it is widely recognized that the vowels of the name are uncertain, another possible transliteration is Yewe. This proposal is in accord with the Nyarafolo rules of vowel harmony and is thus open to being understood as a normal nominalization in the language. Second, Yewe is exactly the word that would be formed by nominalizing the verb ‘to be’ in the class that includes sentient beings. Thus, Yewe can be understood as ‘the being one’ or ‘he that is’. This solution accords well with YHWH’s self-revelation to Moses in Exodus 3:14, ‘I am who I am.'”
In the Literary and Mandarin Chinese (Protestant) tradition the transliteration of “Jehovah” is historically deeply rooted, even though there are also some historical burdens (Click or tap to see more details):
“YHWH” is rendered in the Chinese Union Version — the most widely used Bible translation in China—as well as most other Chinese Bible translations as yehehua 耶和華. According to Chinese naming conventions, yehehua could be interpreted as Ye Hehua, in which Ye would be the family name and Hehua — “harmonic and radiant” — the given name. In the same manner, Ye would be the family name of Jesus (transliterated as yesu 耶穌) and Su would be the given name. Because in China the children inherit the family name from the father, the sonship of Jesus to God the Father, yehehua, would be illustrated through this. Though this line of argumentation sounds theologically unsound, it is indeed used effectively in the Chinese church.” (see Wright 1953, p. 298, see also Jesus).
“Ye 耶, an interrogative particle in classical Chinese, is part of the same phonetic series as ye 爺, which gives it a certain exchangeability. Ye 爺 carries the meaning “father” or is used as an honorable form of address. The choice of the first Bible translators to use the transliteration yehehua 爺火華 for Jehovah had a remarkable and sobering influence on the history of the 19th century in China by possibly helping to shape the fatal Taiping ideology, a rebellion that ended up costing an estimated 20 million lives.
“The founder of the Taiping rebellion, Hong Xiuquan, was given a tract (…) [that he used to] interpret a nervous breakdown he had had in 1837 as his “call” to be the “Messiah.” This “vision” that Hong experienced is likely to have had a direct correlation with the name of “God” in that tract. Shen yehuohua 神爺火華 (directly translated: ‘God (or: spirit); old man (or: father); fire; bright)” was the term that was used in that tract for ‘God Jehovah,’ but this was not indicated as a (in its second part) transliteration of a proper name. In his vision, Hong saw ‘a man venerable in years (corresponding with ye), with golden (corresponding with huo and hua) beard and dressed in a black robe,’ an image likely to have been inspired by a direct translation from that name for ‘God,’ especially as it appeared at the beginning of the tract. That this term was considered to be a term of some relevance to the Taiping ideology is demonstrated by the fact that both yehuohua 爺火華 as the personal name of God and ye 爺 as “God the Father” later appeared in Taiping writings.” (Source: Zetzsche in Malek 2002, p. 141ff.)
In American Sign Language it is translated with a sign that combines the letter Y and a sign that points up and is similar to the sign for “God.” (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“YHWH” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
In British Sign Language is is translated with a sign that combines the signs for “God” and “name” and the finger-spelling of Y-H-W-H. (Source: Anna Smith)
“YHWH” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)
For further reading on the translation of YHWH, see Rosin 1956, p. 89-125 and Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff.
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 first person singular and plural pronoun (“I” and “we” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used watashi/watakushi (私) is typically used when the speaker is humble and asking for help. In these verses, where God / Jesus is referring to himself, watashi is also used but instead of the kanji writing system (私) the syllabary hiragana (わたし) is used to distinguish God from others.
Good News Translation adds the quote frame “The LORD says” at the beginning of this verse in order to make clear who is speaking.
Set the trumpet to your lips is literally “To your [singular] palate a ram’s horn” (similarly New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). This line is a verbless command to an individual. The Hebrew word for trumpet refers to a ram’s horn (see 5.8, where it is rendered “horn”). Any instrument that can be used for sending alarm signals can be used as a functional equivalent, as long as it fits the historical context of this book. Every language will have its normal way to speak of blowing a horn, whether on the lips, the palate, the mouth, the teeth, the gums, or the tongue. In Hebrew the word for trumpet is usually not used in combination with the word for “palate.” Since in Pro 5.3 and 8.7 “palate” is used in parallel with “lips,” Revised Standard Version‘s use of lips is justified here. The significance of the action here is made clear in Good News Translation‘s “Sound the alarm!” Some scholars believe Yahweh is giving this command to the prophet Hosea, as in Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, which begins this verse with “The LORD said to me.” However, it is also possible that the prophet is speaking for Yahweh to a military officer, since nowhere in Hos 4–14 does the prophet receive commands. In most languages the addressee can be left implicit here, just as in the text.
For a vulture is over the house of the LORD: Instead of for a vulture, the Hebrew text has “[one] like a vulture/eagle,” which Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives an {A} rating, which means that there is little or no doubt that the Hebrew text is correct. It is uncertain which bird exactly is meant by the Hebrew word for vulture. This word can have both a specific meaning (Griffon Vulture) and a generic meaning (large bird of prey). In this context it may refer to an “eagle” (New International Version, New Living Translation, NET Bible), since vultures are usually associated with feeding on dead bodies, and the Israelites are not dead yet. Translators may use the image of a large bird that fiercely and speedily attacks living things. However, if they use a local bird of prey, it should fit the context of the Ancient Near East. It should be clear in translation that this bird is not a symbol of protection here, as in Exo 19.4. Jerusalem Bible, Bible de Jérusalem, and Biblia Dios Habla Hoy emend the Hebrew text to read “like a watchman” (similarly New American Bible), but more recent translations reject that change, including New Jerusalem Bible, which has “Like an eagle.” Some translations replace the simile with a metaphor, such as New International Version: “An eagle is over the house of the LORD” (similarly Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, NET Bible).
The house of the LORD is most likely not the Temple in Jerusalem. The word house often refers to an entire land in the literature of the Ancient Near East and in the Bible (compare 9.15), and so Good News Translation‘s “my land” is valid (so also Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch; Bible en français courant “the land of the Lord”). Another possible interpretation is that house refers to people (in analogy to its use in expressions such as “the house of David”). So New Living Translation and De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling say “the people of the LORD.”
Good News Translation renders this entire line as “Enemies are swooping down on my land like eagles!” The implied idea of “Enemies” is made explicit in order that the significance of the figure will be clear to today’s reader. The third person reference to the LORD is changed to first person (“my”) since he is speaking.
Because they have broken my covenant …: The conjunction because introduces why Yahweh allows enemies to attack his people. It is because of their unfaithfulness to him. The Hebrew verb rendered have broken does not mean to break something apart but “to bypass, to overstep, to transgress” (see 6.7, where it is translated “transgressed”). The word covenant occurs already in 2.18 and 6.7 (see comments there). Here it clearly refers to the covenant between Yahweh and Israel, expressed in the Law (see, for example, Exo 19.5). Good News Translation retains Yahweh as the one who initiated the covenant: “My people have broken the covenant I made with them.”
And transgressed my law is parallel to have broken my covenant, and is a further way of referring to the Israelites’ unfaithfulness. This parallelism is typical of Hebrew poetry, where the second line says almost the same thing but in different words, usually in stronger words. Law renders the Hebrew word torah, which primarily refers to teachings, but in this chapter, especially in the context of verse 12, it refers to written teachings that show how the covenant people are to behave in the sight of their God. It was probably much later than Hosea’s time that the Jews assembled the first five books of the Bible into a single collection called the “Torah,” so that is not the meaning here. Although my law is a legitimate translation, the term torah includes much more than mere rules and regulations (see comments on 4.6). Good News Translation translates “my teaching.” The Hebrew word for transgressed has the idea of rebelling, deliberately acting against (see 7.13, where it is rendered “rebelled”).
A translation model for this verse is:
• The LORD says, “Blow the trumpet!
A scavenging eagle hovers over my people,
because they have overstepped my covenant,
they have rebelled against my instruction.
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 .
The Israelites will be punished for rejecting the LORD
In this section, the LORD warned the nation of Israel that enemies were ready to attack them, because they had rejected him and broken their agreement to obey his laws (8:1–3). They disobeyed him by choosing their own leaders (8:4a–b) and making idols (8:4c–6). Their alliance with Assyria failed, and they became weak agriculturally and also politically as a nation. Verse 8:10 predicts their future punishment as slaves in Assyria (8:7–10). The LORD did not accept the sacrifices they offered to him, because they continued to sin, so their cities faced total destruction (11–14).
Here are some other examples of section headings:
The Lord Will Punish Israel for Its Rebellion (God’s Word) -or-
The LORD warned Israel that enemies would attack them -or-
Warning that Israel will be Punished
Throughout this section, the LORD is the speaker. He referred to himself using first person pronouns (“I/me/my”) except for verse 13b–d, which has “he.” In this section, the Hebrew text almost always uses “they” or “he/it” to refer to the people or nation of Israel. The only exceptions are 8:1 and 8:5, which use the pronoun “your.” The Contemporary English Version uses “you/your” consistently to refer to Israel. Most other versions use third person pronouns. The Display will follow the Berean Standard Bible pronoun choice in the first meaning line. It will often use “you/your” in the second meaning line.
Paragraph 8:1–3 and 8:4–6
TN will divide these verses into 8:1–3 and 8:4–6 along with many English versions. In the first paragraph, the LORD warns Israel that they will be punished, because they had rejected his covenant. In the second paragraph, he specifies two ways that Israel had rejected him. In other versions the first paragraph in this chapter is 8:1–6. You should follow a paragraph structure that is natural in your language.
8:1a
Put the ram’s horn to your lips!: The LORD is the implied speaker of these words. In some languages, it will be helpful to make this explicit. For example:
The Lord says, “…. (Good News Translation)
The clause that the Berean Standard Bible translates as Put the ram’s horn to your lips! is literally “to your mouth a horn.” This clause implies that the person should blow the horn. This clause is similar to the cultural gesture “Blow the ram’s horn” in 5:8. In both contexts, the purpose of blowing the horn is to warn the people of danger. Here the danger is specified as an approaching enemy (8:1b).
Here are some ways to translate this cultural gesture:
• Keep the gesture. This option is appropriate if the gesture has the same meaning in your culture. For example:
⌊ Put⌋a ram’s horn to your mouth (Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures)
• Keep the gesture and add the purpose of the gesture. For example:
“Sound the alarm on the ram’s horn (God’s Word) -or-
Blow the ⌊ram’s ⌋ horn ⌊to sound the alarm ⌋ ! (Voice)
• Translate the purpose or meaning of the gesture. For example:
“Sound the alarm! (New Living Translation (2004)) -or-
“Warn the people that their enemies are coming.
ram’s horn: If people in your culture do not blow instruments made from an animal’s horn, you may use a word like “trumpet” that has a similar function, as many English versions have done.
8:1b
An eagle looms over the house of the LORD: In the Berean Standard Bible, this clause is a metaphor. In Hebrew, it is a simile: “like the eagle over the house of the LORD.” Both figures of speech compare the implied topic (an enemy) to an eagle that flies or circles over the house of the LORD. An enemy army and an eagle are similar, because both are large, strong, and swift. An army and an eagle also attack their opponents or prey.
Here are some ways to translate these figures of speech:
• Use a metaphor. Make the similarity explicit if it will be helpful. For example:
Now an eagle is swooping down to attack my land. (Contemporary English Version)
• Use a simile. Make the topic or the similarity explicit if it will be helpful. For example:
The enemy descends like an eagle on the people of the Lord (New Living Translation (2004)) -or-
⌊ A powerful army⌋will soon attack my people like an eagle.
eagle: In Hebrew, this word can refer to an eagle, a vulture, or a similar kind of large bird that eats other birds or small animals. English versions interpret this word in two ways:
(1) The word refers here to an eagle. For example:
Like an eagle (New American Standard Bible)
(2) The word refers here to a vulture. For example:
One like a vulture (English Standard Version)
It is recommended that you follow interpretation (1) along with most versions and commentaries. Eagles attack and eat live animals. Most vultures eat only dead animals.
If eagles are not known in your area, here are two ways to translate the word:
• Use a descriptive phrase. For example:
a large fierce bird
• Substitute another large bird that attacks and eats smaller birds or animals.
over the house of the LORD: This phrase indicates that the eagle is ready to attack or has already started to attack the house of the LORD. There are two main ways to interpret the meaning of the phrase the house of the LORD in this context:
(1) It refers to the nation of Israel. For example:
Enemies are swooping down on my land like eagles! (Good News Translation)
(Contemporary English Version, Good News Translation, New Century Version, New Living Translation (2004))
(2) It refers to the temple. For example:
The enemy swoops down on the Lord ’s temple like an eagle. (God’s Word)
(God’s Word, NET Bible, Revised English Bible)
It is recommended that you follow interpretation (1). In this context, it is the northern kingdom of Israel that is threatened by Assyria. The temple of the LORD was in Jerusalem, in the southern kingdom of Judah.
Here are some other ways to translate this verse part:
An eagle flies/circles over Israel, ready to attack -or-
The enemy swoops down on the Lord ’s people like an eagle. (New Century Version)
8:1c–d
Notice the parallel parts that are similar in meaning:
1c because the people have transgressed My covenant
1d and rebelled against My law.
In these lines, the LORD gives the reason why an enemy will soon attack Israel.
because: The Hebrew text and many versions introduce this reason with a conjunction. For example:
for they have broken their covenant with me, and have rebelled against my law. (NET Bible)
In some languages, it may be more natural to introduce the reason without a conjunction. For example:
they have violated my covenant (Revised English Bible)
Use a natural way in your language to introduce the reason.
the people have transgressed My covenant: In this clause, the words the people refer to the people of Israel. In some languages, it may be helpful to make this explicit. For example:
The Israelites have broken my agreement (New Century Version) -or-
Israel, you broke our agreement (Contemporary English Version)
My covenant…My law: In this context, the phrase My covenant probably refers to the covenant that the LORD made with Moses on Mount Sinai. That covenant included the people’s promise that they would obey his laws. See Exodus 19:5–8. In Hebrew, the word law also means “instruction” or “teaching.”
Here are some other ways to translate these clauses:
they have violated my covenant and rebelled against my instruction (Revised English Bible) -or-
The Israelites have broken my agreement and have turned against my teachings. (New Century Version)
_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg){kind=link}
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.