דַּרְכֵ֨י צִיּ֜וֹן אֲבֵל֗וֹת מִבְּלִי֙ בָּאֵ֣י מוֹעֵ֔ד כָּל־שְׁעָרֶ֨יהָ֙ שֽׁוֹמֵמִ֔ין כֹּהֲנֶ֖יהָ נֶאֱנָחִ֑ים בְּתוּלֹתֶ֥יהָ נּוּג֖וֹת וְהִ֥יא מַר־לָֽהּ׃ ס
4The roads to Zion mourn,
for no one comes to the festivals;
all her gates are desolate;
her priests groan;
her young girls grieve,
and her lot is bitter.
In Gbaya, the notion of grief is emphasized in Lamentations 1:4 with kúrúm-kúrúm, an ideophone that signals a spirit of distress, despair, bitterness.
Ideophones are a class of sound symbolic words expressing human sensation that are used as literary devices in many African languages. (Source: Philip Noss)
The Hebrew and Greek that is mostly translated as “virgin” in English can be translated as “woman that is untouched” in Batak Toba or “a woman with a whole (i.e. unopened) body” in Uab Meto.
“Similar words for ‘girl,’unmarried young woman,’ suggesting virginity without explicitly stating it, are found in Marathi, Apache, or Kituba. Cultural features naturally influence connotations of possible renderings, for instance, the child marriage customs in some Tboli areas, where the boy and girl are made to sleep together at the initial marriage, but after that do not live together and may not see each other again for years. Hence, the closest attainable equivalent, ‘female adolescent,’ does not imply that a young girl is not living with her husband, and that she never had a child, but leaves uncertain whether she has ever slept with a male person or not. Accordingly, in Luke one has to depend on Luke 1:34 to make clear that Mary and Joseph had not had sexual intercourse. A different problem is encountered in Pampanga, where birhen (an adaptation of Spanish virgen — ‘virgin’), when standing alone, is a name of the ‘Virgin Mary.’ To exclude this meaning the version uses “marriageable birhen,” thus at the same time indicating that Mary was relatively young.” (Source: Reiling / Swellengrebel, see here)
In Navajo (Dinė), the term that is used is “no husband yet” (Source: Wallis, p. 106) and in Gola the expression “trouser girl.” “In the distant past young women who were virgins wore trousers. Those who were not virgins wore dresses. That doesn’t hold true anymore, but the expression is still there in the language.” (Source: Don Slager)
The term in Djimini Senoufo is katogo jo — “village-dance-woman” (women who have been promised but who are still allowed to go to dances with unmarried women). (Source: Übersetzung heute 3/1995)
In Igbo translations, typically a newly-created, multi-word phrase is used that very explicitly states that there has not been any sexual relations and that translates as “a woman (or: maiden) who does not know a man.” This is in spite of the fact that there is a term (agb͕ọghọ) that means “young woman” and has the connotation of her not having had sexual relations (this is for instance used by the Standard Igbo Bible of the Bible Society of Nigeria for Isaiah 7:14). Incidentally, the euphemistic expression “know” (ma in Igbo) for “having sex” has become a well-known euphemism outside of Bible translation. (Source: Uchenna Oyali in Sociolinguistic Studies Vol. 17 No. 1-3 (2023): Special Issue: Gender and sexuality in African discourses )
In Chichewa, it is translated as namwali which is used to refer to a girl who has reached puberty stage and is ready to get married. Apart from the physical aspect, the word also has social implications in the sense that it is used to recognize the fact that the girl has become responsible enough to make informed decisions and take care of herself and others. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
See also virgins (Revelation 14:4) and complete verse (Matthew 1:23).
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Ge’ez, and Greek that is translated in English as “holy” has many translations that often only cover one aspect of its complex meaning. (Note that “holy” as well as related words in other Germanic languages originally meant “whole, uninjured.”)
“For a long time there has been considerable confusion regarding the meaning of the word ‘holy’. For the limited scope of this paper, we will focus on this confusion and its development within the English-speaking world, which has a widespread influence in other countries. The word for holy in English can be traced back at least to the eleventh century (although there is evidence of its use in Old Norse around A.D. 825). The Oxford English Dictionary describes the use of holy as applied to deities, stating: ‘the development of meaning has probably been: held in religious regard or veneration, kept reverently sacred from human profanation or defilement; (hence) of a character that evokes human veneration and reverence; (and thus, in Christian use) free from all contamination of sin and evil, morally and spiritually perfect and unsullied, possessing the infinite moral perfection which Christianity attributes to the Divine character.’
“Thus ‘infinite moral perfection’ persists as an understood meaning by many in the English-speaking world today. Others gloss this as ‘purity’ or ‘cleanness,’ and the effects of this interpretation can be seen in residual missionary influence in different parts of the world. These effects manifest themselves in people groups who have long-standing traditions of referring to the Holy Spirit as the ‘clean’ Spirit or the ‘pure’ Spirit. And subsequently, their idea of what it means for God to be holy remains limited by a concept of high sinlessness or perfection. After years of this mentality embedding itself into a culture’s fabric, it turns out to be extremely difficult to translate the Bible into their language using any terminology that might differ from the ingrained tradition handed down to them by missionaries who had a faulty understanding of the word holy. One of the purposes of this paper is to offer persuasive biblical evidence that translations and traditions like those mentioned may be limited in what they convey and may often be unhelpful.
“The persistence of this confusion around the word ‘holy’ in our present day stems from various factors, of which two will be mentioned. First, English translations of the Bible have insisted on retaining the term ‘holy’ even though few modern people intuitively understand the meaning of the term. This phenomenon is similar to the use of the word hosts in phrases like ‘LORD of hosts’ or ‘heavenly hosts,’ which most modern people do not know refers to armies. Within much of the English-speaking church there is an assumption that Christians understand the word ‘holy’, yet at the same time authors continue to write books to help explain the term. These varied explanations have contributed to a conceptual muddiness, which is related to the second primary factor: the promotion and proliferation of an etymological fallacy. This etymological fallacy’s roots can be traced back to the influence of W. W. Baudissin, who published The Concept of Holiness in the Old Testament in 1878. In this work he proposed that the Hebrew קדשׁ originally came from קד, which meant ‘to cut’ (Baudissin 1878). This led to the widespread notion that the primary or essential meaning of ‘holy’ is ‘apart, separate.’ This meaning of holy has been further engrafted into the culture and tradition (….) by influential authors and speakers like R. C. Sproul. His book The Holiness of God, which has sold almost 200,000 copies since it was first released in the 1980s, tends to be a staple volume on every pastor’s shelf, and became an immensely popular video series. In it he writes,
“‘The primary meaning of holy is ‘separate.’ It comes from an ancient word meaning ‘to cut,’ or ‘to separate.’ To translate this basic meaning into contemporary language would be to use the phrase ‘a cut apart.’ . . . God’s holiness is more than just separateness. His holiness is also transcendent. . . . When we speak of the transcendence of God, we are talking about that sense in which God is above and beyond us. Transcendence describes His supreme and absolute greatness. . . . Transcendence describes God in His consuming majesty, His exalted loftiness. It points to the infinite distance that separates Him from every creature.’ (Sproul 1985, 37)
“J. I. Packer also contributes to the spread of this idea in his book Rediscovering Holiness: ‘Holy in both biblical languages means separated and set apart for God, consecrated and made over to Him’ (Packer 2009, 18).
“Widely influential author A. W. Tozer also offers a definition:
“‘What does this word holiness really mean? . . . Holiness in the Bible means moral wholeness — a positive quality which actually includes kindness, mercy, purity, moral blamelessness and godliness. It is always to be thought of in a positive, white intensity of degree.’ (Tozer 1991, 34)
“Thus one can imagine the average Christian trying to juggle this hazy collection of abstractions: infinite moral purity and wholeness, kindness, mercy, blamelessness, godliness, transcendence, exalted loftiness, and separateness. Trying to apply such a vast definition to one’s reading of Scripture can be baffling. (. . .)
“In the levitical and priestly tradition of the Pentateuch, the term ‘holy’ is applied to people (priests, Nazirites, the congregation), places (especially the sanctuary), gifts and offerings, occasions (all the feasts), as well as to Yahweh. While we cannot assume that the meaning is totally different when applied to these different categories, neither should we assume that it is the same. This paper does not propose to address the meaning of holy when referring to things. The purpose is to explore how holy should be understood when applied mainly to persons. It is common for a word to carry a different meaning when applied to a human being than when applied to a thing. In English, for example, a person can be ‘tender’ in a way a steak cannot. Context is king. Also, it should be understood that the semantic range of a word is not permanently fixed and may shift considerably over time. It would be linguistically disingenuous to say that a word always means ‘such and such.’ As Nida explains, a word’s meaning is a ‘set of relations for which a verbal symbol is a sign’ (Nida 1975, 14). Words are not infinitely malleable, but they are also not completely static or inextricably bound by their root or history. Thus this paper acknowledges that ‘holy’ may connote other things such as ‘purity, separate, set apart,’ depending on the context. In summary, this paper should be considered a simple beginning to a discussion that may help stir up others to develop the idea further. (…)
“As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, translations that gloss ‘holy’ as ‘pure’ or ‘clean’ in reference to God or the Spirit are limited and potentially misleading. Therefore, what is the alternative way forward? Obviously, when considering the issue of perceived authenticity, many will not be able to change decades or even centuries of tradition within their communities. Once the translation of a name is established, especially a name so pervasive and primal as Holy Spirit, it is exceedingly difficult to reverse the decision. As in all cases with translation of key terms, best practice involves letting the community make an informed decision and test it amongst themselves.
“In all probability, communities who already use terms such as ‘Clean/Pure Spirit’ will opt to maintain them, even after gaining a better understanding as presented in this paper. In those cases it may be helpful to encourage them to include a clarifying discussion of what it means for God to be holy, in a glossary or a footnote.
“In cultures that have assimilated a loan word from English or some other language, there must be corrective teaching on the term, since it will be impossible to change. We are forever stuck with holy in the English-speaking world, but pastors, leaders, and writers can begin to turn the tide towards a better understanding of the term. Likewise, other cultures can begin to resurrect the biblical meaning through offering wise guidance to their congregations.
“In pioneering contexts where no church or Christian terminology has been established, translators have a unique opportunity to create translations that communicate more accurately what Scripture says about God’s holiness. The equivalent of a single abstract term ‘devoted’ or ‘dedicated’ may often be lacking in other languages, but there are always creative and compelling ways to communicate the concept. Even the translation ‘Faithful Spirit’ would be closer to the meaning than ‘pure.’ ‘Committed’ would be better than ‘separate’ or ‘blameless.’ Nevertheless, it should be clearly understood that finding a viable alternative for translation will be a difficult challenge in many languages.
“Although our devotion to God will involve separating ourselves from certain things and striving to be blameless, they are not equal concepts, just as loving one’s wife is not the same as avoiding pornography (even though it should include that). The one is positive and the other negative. What we want to communicate is the positive and fundamental aspect of holiness, wherein God pours himself out for the good of his people, and people offer their hands and hearts to God and his glory.
“A helpful tool for eliciting a proper translation would be to tell a story of a father (or a mother in some cultures) who was totally devoted to the well-being of his children, or of a husband who was totally devoted to the welfare of his wife. After choosing culturally appropriate examples of how the man went above and beyond the normal call of duty because of his devotion, ask, ‘What would you call this man? What was he like?’ This would open up a potentially valuable discussion that may unveil the right word or phrase.
“Ultimately God’s manifestation of his covenantal character in action towards humanity (his people in particular) and his people manifesting the covenantal character of God in their lives — that is, holiness — complements our understanding of the gospel. God poured out the life of his Son as a demonstration not only of his righteousness (Rom 3:25), but also to show his holiness. Jesus himself was obedient unto death for his Father’s chosen ones, and thus it is no surprise that he is referred to by the quaking demons as ‘the Holy One of God’ (Mark 1:24). And it is the Holy Spirit who manifests God’s holiness through the gospel, enabling people to understand it, bringing them to embrace it, and empowering them to live it.
In the 1960s Bratcher / Nida described the difficulty of translation the concept (in connection with “Holy Spirit”) like this:
“An almost equally difficult element in the phrase Holy Spirit is the unit meaning ‘holy,’ which in the Biblical languages involves a concept of separation (i.e. unto God or for His service). In general, however, it is difficult to employ a term meaning primarily ‘separated’, for this often leads to the idea of ‘cast out’. One must make sure that the concept of ‘separated’ implies not merely ‘separated from’ (hence, often culturally ostracized), but ‘separated to’ (in the idea of consecrated, dedicated, or ‘taboo’ — in its proper technical sense). Perhaps the most naive mistakes in rendering Holy have been to assume that this word can be translated as ‘white’ or ‘clean’, for we assume that “Cleanliness is next to godliness,” a belief which is quite foreign to most peoples in the world. Holy may, however, be rendered in some languages as ‘clear’, ‘pure’ (in Toraja-Sa’dan, Pamona and Javanese ‘clean’ or ‘pure’), ‘shining’, or ‘brilliant’ (with the connotation of awesomeness), concepts which are generally much more closely related to ‘holiness’ than is ‘whiteness’ or ‘cleanness’.”
“Ngcwele is originally a noun from the Xhosa language, meaning ‘smoothness,’ ‘beauty,’ ’brightness.’ But it is also related to other words of the same stem, some used in Zulu, like cwala, ‘to polish.’ and gcwala, ‘to become full.’ The quality of being exalted and therefore being object for fear is well brought out in ngcwele, the side of brightness expressing the glory, and the fullness expressing the perfection which inspires reverential fear. The moral equality implied in ‘holy’ is then derived from these two meanings. What is full of glory and awe-inspiring also becomes moral perfection.” (Source: O. Sarndal in The Bible Translator 1955, p. 173ff. )
The use of the word tapu (from which the English word “taboo” derives) in translations of various languages in the South Pacific is noteworthy. The English term “taboo” was first used by Captain Cook in 1785. It does not only mean “forbidden, prohibited, untouchable,” but also “sacred, holy.” This concept is attested in almost all South Pacific islands (see this listing for the use of forms of tapu in many of the languages — for a modern-day definition of tapu, according to Māori usage, see here ).
While some Bible translators working in South Pacific languages did not use tapu for the Hebrew Old Testament term qôdesh/קֹדֶשׁ (“holy” in English translation), many did, including in Tongan (tapuha), Gilbertese (tabu), Tuvalu (tapu), Rarotongan (tapu), and Māori (tapu). (See: Joseph Hong, The Bible Translator 1994, p. 329 .)
In some of those languages, for instance in the Kiribati (Gilbertese) New Version Bible of 2016, other Old (and New) Testament terms that don’t contain a “Holy” marker in the source language, use tabu as a modifier for terms that are rendered in English as “Bread of Presence (shewbread),” “Sabbath,” or “Temple.”
Some South Pacific languages also use forms of tapu in translation of the “Holy” (Hagios/Ἅγιον) in “Holy Spirit.”
Other languages that use “taboo” for a translation of “holy” include Luvale and Lunda (source: A.E. Horton in The Bible Translator 1951, p. 122ff. ) as well as Izii and Igbo (source: Reiner de Blois).
In American Sign Language it is translated with a sign that combines “unique,” “set apart,” and “cherished.” (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“Holy” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
“The most common form of the word is tapu. That is the Maori, Tahitian, Marquesan, Rarotongan, Mangarevan and Tuamotuan pronunciation, which in some cases sounds more like tafu. The Hawaiian form is kapu [today: hoʻāno], the Tongan tabu. Forms like tambu and tampu are not unknown, particularly in the mixed linguistic area or in the Polynesian periphery. The word is used extensively outside Polynesia proper. Thus in Fiji tabu means unlawful, sacred, and superlatively good; in Malagassy, tabaka, profaned, polluted.
“Up to this point my report is straightforward, and I only wish I could continue, as so many have done, with the following words: ‘A brief glance at any compilation of the forms and meanings of this word in the various Polynesian languages shows that in all of them the word has two main meanings from which the others derive, and these meanings are: prohibited and sacred.’ The comparison of these data, however, suggests something rather different to me; namely, (i) that the same kind of people have compiled all these dictionaries, assessing the meaning of words in European terms, and (a) that, with few exceptions, there are no Polynesian words meaning approximately what the word ‘holy’ means in contemporary usage without concomitantly meaning ‘forbidden’. The distinction between prohibition and sacredness cannot be expressed in Polynesian terms. Modern European languages on the other hand lack a word with the Polynesian range of meaning; hence Europeans discovered that taboo means both prohibition and sacredness. Once this distinction has been discovered, it can be conveyed within the Polynesian cultural idiom by the citation of examples in which only one of the two European translations would be appropriate. I have no wish to labor this point, but I do want to stress a difficulty all too seldom realized. It is for this reason that it is so hard to accept uncritically the vocabulary-list classifications of meanings on which so much of the interpretation of taboo has been based. Tregear’s (Tregear Edward: ‘The Maoris of New Zealand,’ 1890) definition of the Maori tapu is an example: ‘Under restriction, prohibited. Used in two senses: (i) sacred, holy, hedged with religious sanctity; (2) to be defiled, as a common person who touches some chief or tapued property; entering a prohibited dwelling; handling a corpse or human bones . . .’ and so forth.
“This sort of classification almost suggests that there was in Polynesian life a time in which, or a group of objects and situations in relation to which, the notion of prohibition was employed while the society did not yet know, or related to a different group of objects and situations, the notion of sacredness. This is not so. Taboo is a single, not an ‘undifferentiated’, concept. The distinction between prohibition and sacredness is artificially introduced by us and has no bearing on the concept we are discussing. (…)
“Before we go on to the meaning of impurity in taboo, I should like to mention the exceptions I alluded to before: when, according to dictionary evidence, taboo means only ‘sacred’ and not ‘prohibited’. As translations of tapu Tregear gives for the island of Fotuna ‘sacred’, and for the island of Aniwan, ‘sacred, hallowed’. There they are, but I think one is entitled to be suspicious of such cases, since they are not accompanied by any examples of non-Christian, non-translatory use, for the word taboo was widely used by missionaries in the translation of the Bible: in the Lord’s Prayer for ‘hallowed’, ‘sacred’, and as an adjective for words like Sabbath. On the other hand, Tregear’s second point is plausible: that the notion of impurity is derived from that of prohibition (or, as one should rather say, prohibition and sacredness). A mere glance into Polynesian dictionaries reaffirms this statement, for while there is no use of a word — with, as I said, a few exceptions — which connotes sacredness without implying prohibition, there are many words meaning dirty, filthy, not nice, putrid, impure, defiled, etc. Thus it was possible to convey a notion of an object’s unfitness for consumption, or unsatisfactory surface or state of preservation, without any reference to sacredness and prohibition. Only some of the notions of impurity were connected with taboo notions. (p. 33-34) (…)
“Qodesh [קדש] is, for the man of the Pentateuch, unthinkable without manifestation. Furthermore, it is a relation, and what is related to God becomes separated from other things, and separation implies taboo behavior. According to taboo concepts, man must behave in a certain way once the relationship has been established, whether or not he is part of the qodesh relationship. For it does not follow from either the behavioral or the doctrinal element of qodesh that (1) in the establishment of the relationship the incipient part must be God, or that (2) man must be the other part.
“The full relationship, including the ritual behavior which it to some extent explains, is basically a triangular one, but two corners of the triangle may coincide. Thus the Pentateuch tells us of qodesh, holiness: (1) when God manifests Himself, then the spot is qodesh for it has been related to Him. Here the notion of contagion operates. (2) When some thing, animal, or human being has been dedicated to Him, then it is qodesh and hence taboo. Contagion, however, is in no way involved in this case. (3) The baruch relationship, the so-called blessing, also establishes holiness. God himself — this comes as a shock to most superficial Bible readers — is never called holy, qodesh, unless and in so far as He is related to something else. He is holy in His capacity as Lord of Hosts, though He is not here related to man. Very often the Bible says. The Holy One, blessed be He, or blessed be His name. The name is, in the framework of the doctrinal logic of the Pentateuch, always qodesh because it establishes a relationship: it has, so we primitives think, to be pronounced in order to exist.” (p. 85-86)
See also consecrate / consecration and complete verse (Exod. 3:14-15).
Learn more on Bible Odyssey: How Is God Holy? and Sacred (Word Study) .
Bratcher / Nida (1961) say this:
“However, rather than borrow local names for priests, some of which have unwanted connotations, a number of translations have employed descriptive phrases based on certain functions: (1) those describing a ceremonial activity: Pamona uses tadu, the priestess who recites the litanies in which she describes her journey to the upper or under-world to fetch life-spirit for sick people, animals or plants; Batak Toba uses the Arabic malim, ‘Muslim religious teacher;’ ‘one who presents man’s sacrifice to God’ (Bambara, Eastern Maninkakan), ‘one who presents sacrifices’ (Baoulé, Navajo (Dinė)), ‘one who takes the name of the sacrifice’ (Kpelle, and ‘to make a sacrifice go out’ (Hausa); (2) those describing an intermediary function: ‘one who speaks to God’ (Shipibo-Conibo) and ‘spokesman of the people before God’ (Tabasco Chontal).”
In Obolo it is translated as ogwu ngwugwa or “the one who offers sacrifice” (source: Enene Enene), in Mairasi as agam aevar nevwerai: “religious leader” (source: Enggavoter 2004), in Ignaciano as “blesser, one who does ritual as a practice” (using a generic term rather than the otherwise common Spanish loan word sacerdote) (source: Willis Ott in Notes on Translation 88/1982, p. 18ff.), and in Noongar as yakin-kooranyi or “holy worker” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
For Guhu-Samane, Ernest Richert (in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. ) reports this: “The [local] cult of Poro used to be an all-encompassing religious system that essentially governed all areas of life. (…) For ‘priest’ the term ‘poro father’ would at first seem to be a natural choice. However, several priests of the old cult are still living. Although they no longer function primarily as priests of the old system they still have a substantial influence on the community, and there would be more than a chance that the unqualified term would (in some contexts particularly) be equated with the priest of the poro cult. We learned, then, that the poro fathers would sometimes be called ‘knife men’ in relation to their sacrificial work. The panel was pleased to apply this term to the Jewish priest, and the Christian community has adopted it fully. [Mark 1:44, for instance, now] reads: ‘You must definitely not tell any man of this. But you go show your body to the knife man and do what Moses said about a sacrifice concerning your being healed, and the cause (base of this) will be apparent.'”
For a revision of the 1968 version of the Bible in Khmer Joseph Hong (in: The Bible Translator 1996, 233ff. ) talks about a change in wording for this term:
Bau cha r (បូជាចារ្យ) — The use of this new construction meaning “priest” is maintained to translate the Greek word hiereus. The term “mean sang (មាន សង្ឃ)” used in the old version actually means a “Buddhist monk,” and is felt to be theologically misleading. The Khmer considers the Buddhist monk as a “paddy field of merits,” a reserve of merits to be shared with other people. So a Khmer reader would find unthinkable that the mean sang in the Bible killed animals, the gravest sin for a Buddhist; and what a scandal it would be to say that a mean sang was married, had children, and drank wine.
See also idolatrous priests.
The Hebrew, Latin, and Greek that is translated as “mourn” or similar in English is translated in Newari as “have one’s heart broken” or “have a bursting heart” (source: Newari Back Translation).
The Hebrew text of Lamentations 1-4 uses acrostics, a literary form in which each verse is started with one of the successive 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. According to Brenda Boerger (in Open Theology 2016, p. 179ff. ) there are three different reasons for acrostics in the Hebrew text: “for ease of memorization,” the representation “of the full breadth and depth of a topic, all the way from aleph to taw (tav),” and the perception of “the acrostic form as aesthetically attractive.” (p. 191)
While most translations mention the existence of an acrostic in a note or a comment, few implement it in their translation. One such exception is the Danish Bibelen på Hverdagsdansk (publ. 1985, rev. 2015 et al.).
1 Ak ja, den travle by er nu folketom.
Den storslåede by sidder tilbage som en fattig enke.
Dronningen blandt byer blev degraderet til tjenestepige.
2 Byen jamrer og græder natten lang.
Ingen kommer for at trøste hende i sorgen.
Alle de gamle venner har svigtet hende.
3 Det judæiske folk blev mishandlet og ført bort som slaver.
De vansmægter nu i det fremmede uden at finde hvile.
De kunne ikke undslippe, da fjenden oversvømmede byen.
4 Efter at templet blev ødelagt, er det forbi med højtid og fest.
Vejene op til Jerusalem er øde, og byens gader tomme.
Præsterne sørger, pigerne græder, hele byen er fortvivlet.
5 Fjenderne gik af med sejren og plyndrede byen.
Det var Herrens straf for al folkets ulydighed.
Alle byens indbyggere blev ført bort som slaver.
6 Glansen er fuldstændig gået af den før så herlige by.
Byens ledere var udhungrede som hjorte, der forgæves leder efter føde.
De var for udmattede til at undslippe deres forfølgere.
7 Hjemløs og fattig sidder Jerusalem og mindes de skatte, hun har mistet.
Ingen af hendes venner kom hende til hjælp mod fjendens angreb.
Hun blev hånet og spottet af den overlegne fjende.
8 Ingen vil længere se op til Jerusalem, som de gjorde engang.
Hun blev ydmyget og plyndret på grund af sine mange synder.
Nu sidder hun og jamrer, afklædt og skamfuld.
9 Jerusalem var utro mod Herren uden at tænke på følgerne.
Hun fik en frygtelig straf, og der er ingen, der trøster hende.
„Se min elendighed!” råber hun til Herren. „Min fjende foragter mig!”
10 Katastrofen er ikke til at bære, for alt er tabt.
Ikke alene blev alle byens værdier plyndret,
men fremmede folkeslag brød ind i templet og vanhelligede det.
11 Lidelsen ramte alle, som boede i byen.
Hungersnøden tvang dem til at sælge deres sidste ejendele for lidt mad.
Byen råber i sin nød: „Ak, Herre, se dog, hvor foragtet jeg er!
12 Mon der findes en større smerte end min?
Hvad mener I, der står og ser på min ulykke?
Det er jo Herren selv, der har sendt sin straf.
13 Nettet blev kastet ud over mig, og han fangede mig i fælden.
Dommen kom ned fra himlen som en fortærende ild.
Ensom og forladt sidder jeg her i min stadige pine.
14 Om halsen på mig ligger en byrde, som tynger mig til jorden.
Alle mine synder har han lagt som et åg på mine skuldre.
Jeg kunne intet gøre mod de mægtige fjender, han sendte.
15 På slagmarken ligger mine døde, tapre krigere.
Han sendte en mægtig hær mod mine unge soldater.
Han trampede på os, som man tramper druer i vinpersen.
16 Resultatet er en stadig strøm af tårer.
Der er ingen til at trøste og hjælpe mig.
Alt er håbløst, for fjenden har besejret os totalt.”
17 Selv om byen beder om nåde, er der ingen trøst at hente.
Det var Herren, der befalede nabofolkene at gå imod Israel.
De ser nu på Jerusalem som det værste skidt.
18 „Trods mine lidelser,” siger Jerusalem, „ved jeg, at Herrens dom var retfærdig,
for vi gjorde oprør imod alle hans befalinger.
Forstå min smerte, alle I folkeslag: Mine indbyggere er ført bort som slaver.
19 Uanset mit råb om hjælp blev jeg svigtet af mine nærmeste venner.
Mine præster og ledere bukkede under for hungersnøden,
forgæves søgte de efter mad nok til at overleve.
20 Vær mig nådig, Herre, for jeg erkender min synd.
De, der vovede sig ud på gaden, blev dræbt af sværdet,
men de, der blev inde i husene, bukkede under for sulten.
21 Ynkelige suk er alt, hvad jeg kan ytre, og der kommer ingen for at trøste mig.
Mine fjender fryder sig over den dom, du har afsagt over mig.
Gid du snart vil fælde dom over dem, ligesom du dømte mig.
22 Åh, Herre, glem ikke al deres ondskab!
Straf dem, som du har straffet mig!
Mit hjerte er fuldt af sorg, og jeg sukker konstant.”
Copyright © 1985, 1992, 2005, 2013, 2015 by Biblica, Inc.®
The English Bible translation by Ronald Knox (publ. 1950) maintains most Hebrew acrostics (even though Knox’s translation itself is based on the Latin text of the Vulgate rather than the Hebrew):
1 Alone she dwells, the city erewhile so populous; a widow now, once a queen among the nations; tributary now, that once had provinces at her command.
2 Be sure she weeps; there in the darkness her cheeks are wet with tears; of all that courted her, none left to console her, all those lovers grown weary of her, and turned into enemies.
3 Cruel the suffering and the bondage of Juda’s exile; that she must needs dwell among the heathen! Nor respite can she find; close at her heels the pursuit, and peril on either hand.
4 Desolate, the streets of Sion; no flocking, now, to the assembly; the gateways lie deserted. Sighs priest, and the maidens go in mourning, so bitter the grief that hangs over all.
5 Exultant, now, her invaders; with her enemies nothing goes amiss. For her many sins, the Lord has brought doom on her, and all her children have gone into exile, driven before the oppressor.
6 Fled is her beauty, the Sion that was once so fair; her chieftains have yielded their ground before the pursuer, strengthless as rams that can find no pasture.
7 Grievous the memories she holds, of the hour when all her ancient glories passed from her, when her people fell defenceless before the invader, unresisting before an enemy that derided them.
8 Heinously Jerusalem sinned; what wonder if she became an outlaw? How they fell to despising her when they saw her shame, that once flattered her! Deeply she sighed, and turned away her head.
9 Ill might skirts of her robe the defilement conceal; alas, so reckless of her doom, alas, fallen so low, with none to comfort her! Mark it well, Lord; see how humbled I, how exultant my adversary!
10 Jealous hands were laid on all she treasured; so it was that she must see Gentiles profane her sanctuary, Gentiles, by thy ordinance from the assembly debarred.
11 Kindred was none but went sighing for lack of bread, offered its precious heirlooms for food to revive men’s hearts. Mark it well, Lord, and see my pride abased!
12 Look well, you that pass by, and say if there was ever grief like this grief of mine; never a grape on the vineyard left to glean, when the Lord’s threat of vengeance is fulfilled.
13 Must fire from heaven waste my whole being, ere I can learn my lesson? Must he catch me in a net, to drag me back from my course? Desolate he leaves me, to pine away all the day long with grief.
14 No respite it gives me, the yoke of guilt I bear, by his hand fastened down upon my neck; see, I faint under it! The Lord has given me up a prisoner to duress there is no escaping.
15 Of all I had, the Lord has taken away the noblest; lost to me, all the flower of my chivalry, under his strict audit; Sion, poor maid, here was a wine-press well trodden down!
16 Pray you, should I not weep? Fountains these eyes are, that needs must flow; comforter is none at hand, that should revive my spirits. Lost to me, all those sons of mine, outmatched by their enemy.
17 Quest for consolation is vain, let her plead where she will; neighbours of Jacob, so the Lord decrees, are Jacob’s enemies, and all around they shrink from her, as from a thing unclean.
18 Right the Lord has in his quarrel; I have set his commands at defiance. O world, take warning; see what pangs I suffer, all my folk gone into exile, both man and maid.
19 So false the friends that were once my suitors! And now the city lacks priests and elders both, that went begging their bread, to revive the heart in them.
20 Take note, Lord, of my anguish, how my bosom burns, and my heart melts within me, in bitter ruth. And all the while, sword threatens without, and death not less cruel within.
21 Uncomforted my sorrow, but not unheard; my enemies hear it, and rejoice that my miseries are of thy contriving. Ah, but when thy promise comes true, they shall feel my pangs!
22 Vintager who didst leave my boughs so bare, for my much offending, mark well their cruelty, and strip these too in their turn; here be sighs a many, and a sad heart to claim it. (Source )
Spanish has a different tradition of acrostics. It uses non-alphabetic acrostics where the first letters of each line (or verse) together form a word or phrase. In the Traducción en lenguaje actual (publ. 2002, 2004), the translators used the first letters of this chapter of Lamentation to spell out “POBRECITA DE TI, JERUSALEN” (“Poor you, little Jerusalem”) which also is the first line of this chapter of Lamentations (for more on the translation process of this, see Alfredo Tepox in The Bible Translator 2004, p. 233ff. ).
1 ¡Pobrecita de ti, Jerusalén!
Antes eras la más famosa
de todas las ciudades.
¡Antes estabas llena de gente,
pero te has quedado muy sola,
te has quedado viuda!
¡Fuiste la reina de las naciones,
pero hoy eres esclava de ellas!
2 Olvidada y bañada en lágrimas
pasas todas las noches.
Muchos decían que te amaban,
pero hoy nadie te consuela.
Los que se decían tus amigos
hoy son tus enemigos.
3 Bajo el peso de las cadenas,
la gente de Judá salió prisionera.
Sus enemigos los atraparon
y los maltrataron con crueldad.
Ahora son esclavos en países lejanos,
y no han dejado de sufrir.
4 Ruido ya no se escucha
en tus portones, Jerusalén.
¡Qué triste es ver
tus calles desiertas!
Los sacerdotes lloran
y las jóvenes se afligen.
Todo en ti es amargura;
ya nadie viene a tus fiestas.
5 Es tanto tu pecado,
que Dios te castigó.
El enemigo se llevó prisioneros
a todos tus habitantes.
Ahora el enemigo te domina
y vive feliz y contento.
6 ¡Cómo has perdido, Jerusalén,
la belleza que tuviste!
Tus jefes, ya sin fuerzas,
huyen de quienes los persiguen.
¡Hasta parecen venados hambrientos
en busca de pastos frescos!
7 Insistes en recordar
que alguna vez fuiste rica.
Ahora vives en la tristeza
y no tienes a dónde ir.
Cuando el enemigo te conquistó,
no hubo nadie que te ayudara.
Cuando el enemigo te vio vencida,
se burló de verte en desgracia.
8 Tanto has pecado, Jerusalén,
que todos te desprecian.
Los que antes te admiraban
hoy se burlan al verte en desgracia.
¡Ahora derramas lágrimas,
y avergonzada escondes la cara!
9 ¡Asombrosa ha sido tu caída!
¡No hay nadie que te consuele!
Jamás pensaste en llegar a ser
tan despreciada,
y ahora exclamas:
«Mis enemigos me vencieron.
¡Mira, Dios mío, mi aflicción!»
10 Dueño de todas tus riquezas
es ahora tu enemigo.
Tú misma viste entrar en el templo
gente de otros pueblos,
aunque Dios había ordenado
que no debían entrar allí.
11 El pueblo entero llora
y anda en busca de pan.
Con tal de seguir con vida,
cambian sus riquezas por comida.
Llorando le dicen a Dios:
«¡Mira cómo nos humillan!»
12 Todos ustedes, que pasan y me ven,
¿por qué gozan al verme sufrir?
¿Dónde han visto a alguien
que sufra tanto como yo?
Cuando Dios se enojó conmigo,
me mandó este sufrimiento.
13 Intensa lluvia de fuego
ha enviado Dios sobre mí.
Mis huesos se han quemado,
y siento que me muero.
Dios me cerró el paso,
y me hizo retroceder.
Me dejó en el abandono;
mi sufrimiento no tiene fin.
14 Juntó Dios todos mis pecados
y me los ató al cuello.
Ya no me quedan fuerzas;
ya no los soporto más.
Dios me entregó al enemigo,
y no puedo defenderme.
15 En mis calles hay muchos muertos.
¡Dios rechazó a mis valientes!
Juntó un ejército para atacarme,
y acabó con todos mis jóvenes.
Dios me aplastó por completo;
¡me exprimió como a las uvas!
16 Ruedan por mis mejillas
lágrimas que no puedo contener.
Cerca de mí no hay nadie
que me consuele y me reanime.
Mi gente no puede creer
que el enemigo nos haya vencido.
El profeta
17 Un montón de escombros
es ahora Jerusalén.
Suplicante pide ayuda,
pero nadie la consuela.
Dios mismo ordenó
que sus vecinos la atacaran.
Jerusalén
18 Siempre Dios hace lo justo,
pero yo soy muy rebelde.
¡Escuchen, naciones todas!
¡Miren cómo sufro!
¡El enemigo se llevó prisioneros
a todos mis habitantes!
19 Ayuda pedí a mis amigos,
pero me dieron la espalda.
Los jefes y sacerdotes
acabaron perdiendo la vida.
Andaban buscando comida,
y no pudieron sobrevivir.
20 ¡La muerte me quitó a mis hijos
dentro y fuera de la ciudad!
¡Mira mi angustia, Dios mío!
¡Siento que me muero!
¡Tan rebelde he sido contigo
que estoy totalmente confundida!
21 El enemigo no esconde su alegría
porque tú, Dios mío, me haces sufrir.
Todo el mundo escucha mi llanto,
pero nadie me consuela.
¡Ya es tiempo de que los castigues
como me castigaste a mí!
22 No hay un solo pecado
que ellos no hayan cometido;
¡castiga entonces su rebeldía,
como me castigaste a mí!
¡Ya es mucho lo que he llorado,
y siento que me muero!
Traducción en lenguaje actual ® © Sociedades Bíblicas Unidas, 2002, 2004.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Lamentations 1:4:
Verse 4 expands the picture of Jerusalem’s suffering by focusing now on the disappearance of worship in the Temple. The Hebrew text, as represented by Revised Standard Version, says The roads to Zion mourn. The thought is that the roads that were once filled with worshipers are now desolate and empty. These roads led to the holy hill of Zion, where the Temple stood.
It may be necessary to modify the description of roads mourning and say, for example, “The roads to Zion are as people who mourn for their dead.” In some languages this would imply that the roads are noisy places filled with wailing mourners. However, as the second half-line points out, it is the absence of people walking along the roads on their way to the Temple that makes even the roads mourn. Good News Translation says “no one comes to the Temple.” Accordingly it may be necessary to say, for example, “The empty roads that lead to the Temple at Mount Zion are sad, like mourners at a burial.”
The names “Zion,” “Jerusalem,” and “Temple” are used interchangeably in Lamentations. Translators should make clear that Zion is the same as Jerusalem, or more exactly the Temple in Jerusalem; in fact they may wish to replace Zion with “Temple,” as in Good News Translation. “Temple,” as used here, is the place where God is worshiped in Jerusalem, and is considered to be his dwelling or building. In some languages “Temple” may be translated “the holy house,” “the holy building,” “house of God,” or “house where people worship God.”
Appointed feasts is literally “appointed,” but the reference is to the great festival times in the Old Testament. Good News Translation calls these “holy days,” and New English Bible “sacred feasts.” In languages in which appointed feasts would simply mean “scheduled eating and drinking,” it will be necessary to provide the idea of worship; for example, “the days when people came to worship” or “on the special days when people thanked God in the Temple.”
All her gates are desolate: it is not certain whether these are the gates of the city wall or the entrances to the Temple. Good News Translation and others make it clear that these are the “city gates.” Others translating more formally keep her gates. During the celebration of the great festivals of Israel, the worshipers would come crowding through both the city gates and the Temple entrances. Bible en français courant takes her gates to refer to the meeting area inside the city gates and translates “her public squares.” The word gates may sometimes be translated as “the entry place” or “where people went in and out of the city.” The word translated desolate, when used in reference to land or a place, means to be empty, without people, deserted.
Her priests groan: in a similar passage in Joel 1.9, the priests mourn at the destruction of the countryside. Since the priests are no longer present in the Temple, it may be assumed that they groan in captivity. A priest is one who is primarily engaged in leading the rituals of religion. In some societies where there are no priests, it may be necessary to substitute a local term, if it is acceptable. Whether or not this can be done successfully depends on the reaction of the people and their association with men of these professions. If it is felt that local terms designating the leader of the religious cult give a wrong impression, translators may sometimes speak of “the one who makes sacrifices,” where such practice is known, or say “the officer of the Temple” or “the one who functions in the house of God.”
Her maidens have been dragged away: maidens is literally “virgins,” but in English and many other languages the word “virgin” focuses upon a girl’s lack of sexual experience. Accordingly a more general term such as Good News Translation “girls” is more satisfactory. Like the priest these young women had a part to play in the regular Temple worship, as suggested in Psalm 68.25. Revised Standard Version assumes the Hebrew verb translated “afflicted” was originally dragged away, and so changes the verb on this basis. See Revised Standard Version footnote. Good News Translation does not change the word and so has “The girls … suffer.” Good News Translation “who sang there” further identifies these girls, who would otherwise have no expressed association with the Temple.
And she herself suffers bitterly: suffers has been supplied by Revised Standard Version but is required in the context. Just as “her” in the previous unit refers to “Zion” (the Temple), so also does she in the final half-line. Bible en français courant translates the final half-line as a summary statement, “How bitter all that is for Zion,” which may be recommended to translators. Suffer is sometimes translated “to have pain” or “to hurt with grief.”
Good News Translation has rearranged the second and third pair of half-lines of the Hebrew in verse 4 so as to bring together the description of the “girls who sang” and “the priests,” both of whose activities are related to the act of worship. The final line of Good News Translation then puts together “the city gates” and “Zion.” The effect of this reordering of the lines is to give greater coherence to the related parts of the verse.
Quoted with permission from Reyburn, William D. A Handbook on Lamentations. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1992. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.