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. )
  • 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 .

neighbor - relative

The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “neighbor” or “relative” in English is translated in the Contemporary Chichewa translation (2002/2016) and the Buku Lopatulika translation (1922/2018) with just one word: nansi. This word can also be translated as neighbors whom you share a blood relation with because in Chewa context a community is mostly comprised of people of blood relations. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Joshua 9:16 - 9:17

The text does not say how the Israelites discovered that they had been deceived, but the intimation is that they learned by accident; this would seem the better alternative in translation, if a choice must be made between intentional and unintentional learning. In any case, they set out at once and went to the four cities of the Gibeonites, but because of their treaty with them they could not kill them. Instead, the Gibeonites became slaves of the Israelites.

Three days later (in both 16 and 17) means “the day after tomorrow” (see comments on 1.11).It should be noticed that Hebrew Old Testament Text Project says that the two periods of three days in verses 16 and 17 refer to the same three days, not to six days, and propose a translation what will reflect this understanding of the text. On the face of it, this sounds correct, but it must be said that the Hebrew text as it now stands does not read as though the two three-day periods are just one three-day period. Many languages will have idiomatic ways of describing such short periods of time. Concerning the possibility of understanding three days later of both verses as a reference to the same time period, see below.

After the treaty had been made may be restructured as an active clause: either “after the Israelites had made the treaty with the Gibeonites” or “after the Israelites and the Gibeonites had made a treaty.”

The Israelites learn the truth about the Gibeonites, that they did indeed live nearby (the Hebrew is quite repetitious; “they were neighbors to them and in their neighborhood they lived”). At once the Israelites set out and arrive at Gibeon on the third day (Gibeon was only 30 kilometers from the Israelites camp at Gilgal; and notice that in 10.9 the Israelites are able to cover the distance in a nightlong forced march). The four cities were quite close together: Beeroth was about 7 kilometers northeast of Gibeon; Chephirah was about 7 kilometers southwest of Gibeon, and Kiriath Jearim a bit farther away in the same direction.

The Hebrew text of verse 16 reads “At the end of three days,” while in verse 17 it reads “on the third day.” There is the possibility that the same period of time is designated by each of these temporal phrases. If that is the case, then the text would appear to mean that three days after the treaty was signed the people of Israel happened to arrive in the area where the Gibeonites’ cities were. It was at this time that they learned that they had been tricked. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recognizes the problem and recommends that these three-day periods be identified as one in translation. If the translator follows the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommendation, verses 16-17 may then become a unit:

• After making the treaty with the Gibeonites, the Israelites broke camp and were on the move again. At the end of the third day, they arrived in the vicinity of the cities of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath Jearim. It was then that the Israelites learned that the Gibeonites did indeed live nearby.

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Newman, Barclay M. A Handbook on Joshua. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .