Hades / Sheol

The Hebrew, Latin and Greek that is often translated in English as “Hades” or “Sheol” is translated in the German Luther Bible 2017 (and pre-1912) as Totenreich or “realm (or: kingdom) of the dead” in these verses. (Source: Jost Zetzsche)

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Sheol .

covenant

Click here to view graphically

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. )
  • 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 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).

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Covenant in the Hebrew Bible .

refuge / shelter

The Hebrew that is translated as “shelter” or “refuge” or similar in English is translated in Vidunda as “place to run to.” (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Isa 28:15)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, the Jarai and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the exclusive pronoun, excluding Isaiah.

formal 2nd person plural pronoun (Japanese)

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 formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on Isaiah 28:15

In this verse the prophet quotes several claims made by the leaders in Jerusalem. Yahweh responds to them in verses 16-17. The prophet adds his own reflections on them in verse 18. So there is a close relationship between verses 15-18.

Because you have said …: Since this verse provides the reason for Yahweh’s response in the next verse, it begins with the connector Because. The quotation here is rather lengthy, so it may be better in some languages to omit this connector and retain the connector “Therefore” at the beginning of the next verse (so Revised English Bible). Some languages may prefer to express this quotation as indirect speech (so Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version; see the third example below).

We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol we have an agreement: These two parallel lines are synonymous. They both refer to Judah’s alliance with Egypt against Assyria. It is likely that the prophet deliberately misquotes the leaders of Judah. He uses heavy sarcasm to describe their alliance with Egypt as a covenant with death and with Sheol … an agreement. He uses these expressions to say their alliance will end in their death as a nation. For covenant see 24.5; for Sheol, the place of the dead, see 5.14.

A less likely interpretation of these lines is that they are the actual words of the leaders. In this view death and Sheol stand for Canaanite gods. Mot was the Canaanite god of death, the lord of the underworld. So Judah’s leaders put their trust in idols. Even if this is not a reference to an actual covenant with Canaanite gods, the leaders would recognize the wordplay between the Hebrew word for death, which is mawet, and the name of the Canaanite god Mot.

When the overwhelming scourge passes through it will not come to us: Because of the covenant with Egypt, the leaders of Judah believe that the invading Assyrian army will not hurt them. Instead of the overwhelming scourge, Dead Sea Scrolls has “the overwhelming flood,” which fits the context better. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project does not mention this textual problem, but along with many scholars we prefer the Dead Sea Scrolls reading. It refers to the Assyrian army advancing like a flood. If the figure of a flood is misunderstood, translators may say “the devastating enemy attack.” Bible en français courant and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch say “the catastrophe.” It will not come to us means the flood, that is, the Assyrian army, will not affect Judah.

For we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter: The Hebrew particle ki rendered for may be a logical connector (so Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation) or an emphatic marker (see the second example below). In these two synonymous parallel lines the prophet deliberately misquotes the leaders of Judah again. There is little doubt that lies and falsehood are wordplays on what the leaders actually said. According to the prophet, the leaders have placed their trust in lies and falsehood, because Egypt’s promises of help were not trustworthy. The parallel terms refuge and shelter speak of protection from attack.

For translators it will be a major challenge to express the sarcasm in Isaiah’s words here. Some possible approaches for this verse are:

• You have said, “We have made a covenant with death, an agreement with Sheol;
when the overwhelming attack sweeps by, it will not affect us,
because lies are our refuge and false dealing is our protection.”

• You said, “We have entered into a covenant with death,
we have made an agreement with the place of the dead;
if the overwhelming flood should sweep across, it will not affect us.”
Truly you can say, “We foolishly take refuge in [their] lies and find comfort in [their] false promises.”

• You have stated that you have made a covenant with death, an alliance with Sheol [the place of the dead],
and that when the terrible attack comes it will not overwhelm you;
you have said that your refuge is a lie and your protection is false.

Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Sterk, Jan. A Handbook on Isaiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .