The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “casting” or “drawing lots” in English is often translated with a specific idiom, such as “to take out bamboo slips” — 掣 籤 chè qiān (in most Mandarin Chinese Bibles), “each to pick-up which is-written (i.e. small sticks inscribed with characters and used as slots)” (Batak Toba), a term for divination by means of reed stalks (Toraja-Sa’dan).
In some cases a cultural equivalent is not available, or it is felt to be unsuitable in this situation, e.g. in Ekari where “to spin acorns” has the connotation of gambling, one may have to state the fact without mentioning the means, e.g. “it came to him,” (source for this and all above: Reiling / Swellengrebel). In Shipibo-Conibo there was no equivalent for “casting lots” so the translation for Mark 15:24 is descriptive: “they shook little things to decide what each one should take” (source: Nida 1952, p. 47).
Ayutla Mixtec: “put out luck” (Source for this and five above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
Lacandon: “play with small stones in order to see who was going to win” (source: B. Moore / G. Turner in Notes on Translation 1967, p. 1ff.)
Matumbi: mpumbe a game of chance, typically done with a stone hidden in one hand while you present two fists to a guesser (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
In North Alaskan Inupiatun a term for “gambling” is used. The same Inupiatun term is also used in Esther 3:7, “though there winning and losing is not in view, but rather choosing by chance” (source: Robert Bascom)
The stand-alone term that is translated “lots” in English is translated as “two pieces of potsherd” in Highland Totonac. (Source: Ronald D. Olson in Notes on Translation January, 1968, p. 15ff.)
In many English translations the Greek terms “hieron” (the whole “temple” in Jerusalem or specifically the outer courts open to worshippers) and “naos” (the inner “shrine” or “sanctuary”) are translated with only one word: “temple” (see also for instance “Tempel” in German [for exception see below] and “tempel” in Dutch, Danish, or Afrikaans).
Other languages make a distinction: (Click or tap here to see more)
Navajo (Dinė): “house in which worship is carried out” (for naos)
Balinese: “inner part of the Great Temple” (“the term ‘inner part’ denoting the hindmost and holiest of the two or three courts that temples on Bali usually possess”) vs. “Great Temple”
Telugu: “womb (i.e. interior)-of-the-abode” vs. “abode”
Thai: a term denoting the main audience hall of a Buddhist temple compound vs. “environs-of-the-main-audience-hall”
Kituba: “place of holiness of house-God Lord” vs. “house-God Lord”
Shipibo-Conibo: “deep in God’s house” vs. “God’s house” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
Germandas Buch translation by Roland Werner (publ. 2009-2022): “inner court of the temple” (Tempelinnenhof) vs. “temple”
Languages that, like English, German, Dutch, Danish, or Afrikaans, don’t make that distinction include:
Toraja-Sa’dan: “house that is looked upon as holy, that is sacred, that is taboo and where one may not set foot” (lit. “house where-the-belly-gets-swollen” — because taboo is violated — using a term that is also applied to a Muslim mosque) (source for this and the three above: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
Aguaruna: “the house for talking to God” (source for this and above: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.)
Guhu-Samane: “festival longhouse of God” (“The biiri, ‘festival longhouse’, being the religious and social center of the community, is a possible term for ‘temple’. It is not the ‘poro house’ as such. That would be too closely identified with the cult of poro. The physical features of the building, huge and sub-divided, lend it further favor for this consideration. By qualifying it as ‘God’s biiri’ the term has become meaningful and appropriate in the context of the Scriptures.”) (Source: Ernest Richert in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. )
Enga: “God’s restricted access house” (source: Adam Boyd on his blog )
Another distinction that tends to be overlooked in translations is that between hieron (“temple” in English) and sunagógé (“synagogue” in English). Euan Fry (in The Bible Translator 1987, p. 213ff. ) reports on this:
“Many older translations have simply used transliterations of ‘temple’ and ‘synagogue’ rather than trying to find equivalent terms or meaningful expressions in their own languages. This approach does keep the two terms separate; but it makes the readers depend on explanations given by pastors or teachers for their understanding of the text.
“Translators who have tried to find meaningful equivalents, for the two terms ‘temple’ and ‘synagogue’ have usually made a distinction between them in one of two ways (which focus on the contrasting components of meaning). One way takes the size and importance of the Temple to make a contrast, so that expressions such as ‘sacred meeting/ worship house of the Jews’ and ‘big sacred meeting/worship house of the Jews’ are used. The other way focuses on the different nature of the religious activity at each of the places, so that expressions such as ‘meeting/worship house of the Jews’ and ‘sacrifice/ceremony place of the Jews’ are used.
“It is not my purpose in this article to discuss how to arrive at the most precise equivalent to cover all the components of meaning of ‘temple’. That is something that each translator really has to work through for himself in the light of the present usage and possibilities in his own language. My chief concern here is that the basic term or terms chosen for ‘temple’ should give the reader of a translation a clear and correct picture of the location referred to in each passage. And I am afraid that in many cases where an equivalent like ‘house of God’ or ‘worship house’ has been chosen, the readers have quite the wrong picture of what going to the Temple or being in the Temple means. (This may be the case for the word ‘temple’ in English too, for many readers.)”
Here are some examples:
Bambara: “house of God” (or: “big house of worship”) vs. “worship house” (or: “small houses of worship”)
Toraja-Sa’dan: “house where-the-belly-gets-swollen” (see above) vs. “meeting house for discussing matters concerning religious customs” (and “church” is “house where one meets on Sunday”)
Navajo (Dinė): “house in which worship is carried out” vs. “house of gathering” (source for all above: Bratcher / Nida)
Click or tap here to see a short video clip about Herod’s temple (source: Bible Lands 2012)Click or tap here to see a short video clip showing synagogues in New Testament times (source: Bible Lands 2012)
Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 1:9:
Noongar: “The priests always used sacred stones, seeing which man would burn the incense on the altar.” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uma: “Following their custom, they cast-lots [refers to any test to decide who goes first] for which of them was chosen to enter into the House of God to burn the incense. Zakharia was the one chosen by their lots.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “As was the custom of the priests they drew lots and Jakariya was given the work of burning incense in the holy room of the temple. Therefore he went inside.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And then, according to the handed down custom of the priests, Zechariah was chosen by lot so that he would be the one to enter into the House of God and burn incense.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “The custom of the priests, they drew-lots as to what the work of each one would be, and Zekarias was chosen-by-lot to enter the Temple to burn pleasant-smelling insinso (incense).” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Well, since it was the custom of the priests to draw-lots as to who would burn incense, Zacarias was picked-by-lot. That’s why he entered the room of the Templo where was the burning-place of incense.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
The Hebrew adonai in the Old Testament typically refers to God. The shorter adon (and in two cases in the book of Daniel the Aramaic mare [מָרֵא]) is also used to refer to God but more often for concepts like “master,” “owner,” etc. In English Bible translations all of those are translated with “Lord” if they refer to God.
In English Old Testament translations, as in Old Testament translations in many other languages, the use of Lord (or an equivalent term in other languages) is not to be confused with Lord (or the equivalent term with a different typographical display for other languages). While the former translates adonai, adon and mare, the latter is a translation for the tetragrammaton (YHWH) or the Name of God. See tetragrammaton (YHWH) and the article by Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff. for more information.
In the New Testament, the Greek term kurios has at least four different kinds of use:
referring to “God,” especially in Old Testament quotations,
meaning “master” or “owner,” especially in parables, etc.,
as a form of address (see for instance John 4:11: “Sir, you have no bucket”),
or, most often, referring to Jesus
In the first and fourth case, it is also translated as “Lord” in English.
Most languages naturally don’t have one word that covers all these meanings. According to Bratcher / Nida, “the alternatives are usually (1) a term which is an honorific title of respect for a high-ranking person and (2) a word meaning ‘boss’, ‘master’, or ‘chief.’ (…) and on the whole it has generally seemed better to employ a word of the second category, in order to emphasize the immediate personal relationship, and then by context to build into the word the prestigeful character, since its very association with Jesus Christ will tend to accomplish this purpose.”
When looking at the following list of back-translations of the terms that translators in the different languages have used for both kurios and adonai to refer to God and Jesus respectively, it might be helpful for English readers to recall the etymology of the English “Lord.” While this term might have gained an exalted meaning in the understanding of many, it actually comes from hlaford or “loaf-ward,” referring to the lord of the castle who was the keeper of the bread (source: Rosin 1956, p. 121).
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight
Following are some of the solutions that don’t rely on a different typographical display (see above):
Iyansi: Mwol. Mwol is traditionally used for the “chief of a group of communities and villages” with legal, temporal, and spiritual authority (versus the “mfum [the term used in other Bantu languages] which is used for the chief of one community of people in one village”). Mwol is also used for twins who are “treated as special children, highly honored, and taken care of like kings and queens.” (Source: Kividi Kikama in Greed / Kruger, p. 396ff.)
Binumarien: Karaambaia: “fight-leader” (Source: Oates 1995, p. 255)
Warlpiri: Warlaljamarri (owner or possessor of something — for more information tap or click here)
We have come to rely on another term which emphasizes God’s essential nature as YHWH, namely jukurrarnu (see tetragrammaton (YHWH)). This word is built on the same root jukurr– as is jukurrpa, ‘dreaming.’ Its basic meaning is ‘timelessness’ and it is used to describe physical features of the land which are viewed as always being there. Some speakers view jukurrarnu in terms of ‘history.’ In all Genesis references to YHWH we have used Kaatu Jukurrarnu. In all Mark passages where kurios refers to God and not specifically to Christ we have also used Kaatu Jukurrarnu.
New Testament references to Christ as kurios are handled differently. At one stage we experimented with the term Watirirririrri which refers to a ceremonial boss of highest rank who has the authority to instigate ceremonies. While adequately conveying the sense of Christ’s authority, there remained potential negative connotations relating to Warlpiri ceremonial life of which we might be unaware.
Here it is that the Holy Spirit led us to make a chance discovery. Transcribing the personal testimony of the local Warlpiri pastor, I noticed that he described how ‘my Warlaljamarri called and embraced me (to the faith)’. Warlaljamarri is based on the root warlalja which means variously ‘family, possessions, belongingness’. A warlaljamarri is the ‘owner’ or ‘possessor’ of something. While previously being aware of the ‘ownership’ aspect of warlaljamarri, this was the first time I had heard it applied spontaneously and naturally in a fashion which did justice to the entire concept of ‘Lordship’. Thus references to Christ as kurios are now being handled by Warlaljamarri.” (Source: Stephen Swartz, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )
Mairasi: Onggoao Nem (“Throated One” — “Leader,” “Elder”) or Enggavot Nan (“Above-One”) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Obolo: Okaan̄-ene (“Owner of person(s)”) (source: Enene Enene)
Lotha Naga: Opvui (“owner of house / field / cattle”) — since both “Lord” and YHWH are translated as Opvui there is an understanding that “Opvui Jesus is the same as the Opvui of the Old Testament”
Seediq: Tholang, loan word from Min Nan Chinese (the majority language in Taiwan) thâu-lâng (頭儂): “Master” (source: Covell 1998, p. 248)
Thai: phra’ phu pen cao (พระผู้เป็นเจ้า) (divine person who is lord) or ong(kh) cao nay (องค์เจ้านาย) (<divine classifier>-lord-boss) (source: Stephen Pattemore)
Arabic often uses different terms for adonai or kurios referring to God (al-rabb الرب) and kurios referring to Jesus (al-sayyid الـسـيـد). Al-rabb is also the term traditionally used in Arabic Christian-idiom translations for YHWH, and al-sayyid is an honorary term, similar to English “lord” or “sir” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin).
Tamil also uses different terms for adonai/kurios when referring to God and kurios when referring to Jesus. The former is Karttar கர்த்தர், a Sanskrit-derived term with the original meaning of “creator,” and the latter in Āṇṭavar ஆண்டவர், a Tamil term originally meaning “govern” or “reign” (source: Natarajan Subramani).
Burunge: Looimoo: “owner who owns everything” (in the Burunge Bible translation, this term is only used as a reference to Jesus and was originally used to refer to the traditional highest deity — source: Michael Endl in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 48)
Yagaria: Souve, originally “war lord” (source: Renck, p. 94)
Aguacateco: Ajcaw ske’j: “the one to whom we belong and who is above us” (source: Rita Peterson in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 49)
Konkomba: Tidindaan: “He who is the owner of the land and reigns over the people” (source: Lidorio 2007, p. 66)
Chichewa: AmbuyeAmbuye comes from the singular form Mbuye which is used to refer to: (1) someone who is a guardian or protector of someone or group of people — a grandparent who has founded a community or village; (2) someone who is a boss or master over a group of people or servants and has absolute control over them; (3) owner of something, be it a property, animals and people who are bound under his/her rule — for people this was mostly commonly used in the context of slaves and their owner. In short, Mbuye is someone who has some authorities over those who call him/her their “Mbuye.” Now, when the form Ambuye is used it will either be for honorific when used for singular or plural when referring to more than one person. When this term is used in reference to God, it is for respect to God as he is acknowledged as a guardian, protector, and ruler of everything. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation).
Hdi uses rveri (“lion”) as a title of respect and as such it regularly translates adon in the Old Testament. As an address, it’s most often with a possessive pronoun as in rvera ɗa (“my lion” = “my lord” or “sir”). So, for example, Genesis 15:2 (“O Lord God”) is Rvera ɗa Yawe (“My lion Yahweh”) or Ruth to Boaz in Ruth 2:13: “May I find your grace [lit. good-stomach] my lion.” This ties in nicely with the imagery of the Lord roaring like a lion (Hosea 11:10; Amos 3:8; Joel 3:16). Better still, this makes passages like Revelation 5:5 even richer when we read about rveri ma taba məndəra la Yuda, “the Lion of the tribe of Judah”. In Revelation 19:16, Jesus is rveri ta ghəŋa rveriha “the lion above lions” (“lord of lords”). (Source: Drew Maust)
Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew adonai was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments: “Another case is the use of kurios referring to Jesus. For Yahweh (in English Bibles: ‘the Lord‘), the Septuagint uses kurios. Although the term kurios usually has to do with one’s authority over others, when the New Testament authors use this word from the Septuagint to refer to Jesus, they are making an extraordinary claim: Jesus of Nazareth is to be identified with Yahweh.”
Living Water is produced for the Bible translation movement in association with Lutheran Bible Translators. Lyrics derived from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®).
egeneto de … elache ‘it happened … it fell to him by lot.’ The phrase egeneto de, or kai egeneto ‘and it happened’ with a subordinate expression of time and followed by a verbal clause occurs 40 times in Luke’s Gospel (in 8.40 and 10.38 in Textus Receptus only). It has come to Luke through the Septuagint where it serves to render Hebrew wayyehi with expression of time, followed by a verbal clause. The phrase consists of three syntactic elements, i.e.
(1) introductory verb, kai egeneto or egeneto de without difference in meaning;
(2) indication of time, mostly in the form of en with following articular infinitive or accusative and infinitive, or in the form of a prepositional phrase, but sometimes appearing as a subordinate verbal clause or as a genitive absolute;
(3) connecting clause, in some cases linked to the introductory verb by kai but usually asyndetic; in 5 cases the connecting clause is an accusative and infinitive dependent upon egeneto. Decisive for the translation of the kai egeneto-phrase is the function it has in the context of its occurrences.
These functions may be classified as follows:
(1) introduction, or beginning of a narrative (24 times): (a) beginning of the narrative proper or description of the event that determines what follows (2.1; 3.21; 6.1; 7.11; 8.1, 22; 9.28, 51; 10.38 Textus Receptus; 11.1, 27; 18.35; 20.1), (b) description of the circumstances or the background of the narrative (5.1, 12, 17; 6.6, 12; 8.40 Textus Receptus; 9.18, 37; 14.1; 17.11);
(2) beginning of a narrative after preceding introduction (1.8, 59; 11.14; 19.29; 24.15);
(3) climax in a narrative (1.41; 2.6, 46; 17.14; 19.15; 24.4, 30, 51);
(4) transition in a narrative (2.15; 9.33; 16.22);
(5) close of a narrative (1.23)
None of these various functions requires a literal rendering of the egeneto-phrase, unless in the receptor language such a phrase exists and is used to express the semantic function in question. In many cases no such rendering is needed and it will be sufficient to use particles which have a similar function as the egeneto-phrase has in the case in question.
en tō hierateuein auton ‘during his serving as a priest,’ articular accusative and infinitive. Most translations shift to a subordinate temporal clause e.g. Revised Standard Version.
hierateuō ‘to perform the service of a priest.’
en tē taxei tēs ephēmerias autou ‘in the turn of his division,’ adverbial phrase with hierateuein, indicating the frame within which the priestly service took place. Hence New English Bible, “when it was the turn of his division and he was there to take part in the divine service”.
taxis ‘fixed succession,’ ‘turn.’
enanti tou theou ‘in the presence of God,’ qualifying hierateuein locally (‘in the temple,’ where God was believed to dwell in the Holy of Holies) and by implication indicating to whom the service was directed.
enanti ‘opposite,’ ‘before.’
(V. 9) kata to ethos tēs hierateias ‘according to the custom of the priestly service,’ may go syntactically either with the preceding or with what follows. When taken with the preceding (cf. Translator’s New Testament) the phrase qualifies en tē taxei tēs ephēmerias autou explaining that it was the custom of the priestly service that each division did its turn of temple service, but this comes near to a tautology. Therefore it is preferable to take it with the following, to qualify the casting of lots as the customary method to decide the task each priest had to do (cf. 1 Chron. 25.8). This is done by the majority of translators and commentators.
ethos ‘custom,’ ‘habit.’
hierateia ‘priestly service,’ rather than ‘priestly office.’ The genitive hierateias is qualifying.
elache tou thumiasai ‘it fell to him by lot to make the incense offering.’ The genitive tou thumiasai may be a genitive of object with elache or be understood as an independent genitive of the articular infinitive complementing in free connexion the action of the main verb.
lagchanō ‘to obtain by lot,’ ‘to be chosen by lot.’
thumiaō ‘to make an incense offering.’
eiselthōn eis ton naon tou kuriou ‘having entered the temple of the Lord,’ to be taken with thumiasai as subordinate to its (unmentioned) subject and not with elache, because the casting of the lots took place before the priest entered the temple (cf. Strack-Billerbeck II, 72).
naos ‘temple,’ referring to the central building, as contrasted with hieron (cf. on 2.27) in Revised Standard Version also translated ‘temple’ but referring to “the whole sacred area, including various auxiliary courts, side chambers and porticos” (cf. IDB IV, 551). Only priests were allowed to enter the naos.
Translation:
In several cases, e.g. Kituba, Tboli, Shipibo-Conibo, the information implied in these verses must be made more explicit, and/or subordinated clauses must be changed in co-ordinate sentences. This may result in something like, ‘One day it was the turn of Z.’s division, and he served as priest before God. Now the priests were accustomed to cast lots to apportion their duties (or, to decide what each had to do). When they did so on that day, it fell to Z. to enter … and to burn the incense.’
Now, or, ‘one day,’ ‘once,’ ‘it-is-told’ (Javanese), ‘(things) being thus’ (Tamil, Kannada), ‘on a certain occasion’ (Malay), all having transitional and/or introductory function.
He may be ambiguous; hence, ‘Zechariah’ in several versions. — Personal pronouns and pronominal reference play an important role in clause and discourse structure; their system and use are an intimate part of the linguistic structure, and differ from language to language. The translator, therefore, should not feel tied to the way Greek, or English, uses its pronouns (as done in many old versions, and even in some modern ones, unfortunately), but use, omit, add, substitute, or shift pronouns as required by receptor language usage. It is impossible in the Handbook to point out and discuss the problems in detail; only some rather general and obvious ones will be touched upon, and even those not systematically, but rather by way of example, cf. e.g., range of pronominal reference (1.11), full reference in a new section (2.22), pronoun and respect (3.22), sequence of pronoun and noun (4.5), pronoun and principal character (4.16). In the present verse the pronoun may have to be replaced by the proper name for several reasons, e.g., because here, where the actual narrative begins, a full reference is required; or, in languages where pronouns are neutral as to sex, because the pronoun would naturally be taken as referring to the person last mentioned in what precedes, i.e. Elizabeth.
Was serving (or, acting) as a priest, or, ‘was-priesting’ (Javanese), “did his work as priest” (Good News Translation), or simply, ‘did his work,’ its specific kind being clear from the context.
Before God. The image is that of a servant working under the eyes of his master. Some possibly necessary semantic shifts are, to mention God’s abode instead of God’s person, e.g. ‘in the temple’ (see on 2.27); or to take God as the goal of the action performed in His presence, e.g. ‘serving God as (his) priest,’ or, ‘rendering priestly service to God.’
When his division was on duty, or, ‘when the Abiah-priests had their turn’ (Sranan Tongo), ‘when the time came for him/Zechariah and his companions to work as priests.’
(V. 9) According to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot, or, ‘as the priests used to do (or, always did), it was assigned to him by means of casting lots,’ ‘when they (indefin.) cast lots, in-accordance-with the custom valid amongst the priests, it was he who was appointed’ (Bahasa Indonesia 1968). The priesthood may have to be specified, ‘the priests there’ (Balinese), ‘the priesthood in Jerusalem.’ — Casting or drawing lots was probably used as a means to make the choice independent of human decisions. Often a specific idiom, or a reference to a cultural equivalent of ‘to cast lots’ can be used, e.g. ‘to take out bamboo slips’ (Chinese), ‘each to pick-up which is-written (i.e. small sticks inscribed with characters and used as lots)’ (Batak Toba), a term for divination by means of reed stalks (Toraja-Sa’dan). Elsewhere a descriptive or generic rendering must be given, e.g. ‘to write on pieces of potsherd; to take one out’ (Highland Totonac, in Acts 1.26), or, ‘to vie with each other,’ a reciprocal form of ‘to win’ (Tboli). In some cases a cultural equivalent is not available, or it is felt to be unsuitable in this situation, e.g. in Ekari (where ‘to spin acorns’ has the connotation of gambling); then one may have to state the fact without mentioning the means, e.g. ‘it came to him’ (Ekari), ‘it happened that he had.’
To enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense, co-ordinating the two verbal forms, and reversing their order. By this shift ‘to enter’ becomes directly dependent upon ‘it fell to his lot,’ in accordance with the actual facts, appointment to burn incense in the sanctuary naturally including entering it. — The temple renders Gr. naos and hieron in Revised Standard Version, but it is preferable to use distinctive renderings. For the latter see on 2.27; the former (also occurring 1.21f; 23.45) has been rendered: ‘holy place,’ ‘sanctuary,’ ‘Shrine,’ ‘house in which worship is carried out’ (Navajo), ‘inner part of the Great Temple’ (Balinese, the term ‘inner part’ denoting the hindmost and holiest of the two or three courts that temples on Bali usually possess), ‘womb (i.e. interior)-of-the-abode’ (Telugu, in v. 21), or, a term denoting the main audience hall of a Buddhist temple compound (Thai). If the expression used contains a term for ‘house of God,’ it may be possible to combine it with ‘of the Lord’ (cf. e.g., ‘place of holiness of house-God Lord,’ Kituba), but often this is impossible. Then ‘Lord’ may have to be substituted for ‘God’ (Malay), or be omitted, cf. ‘deep in God’s house’ (Shipibo-Conibo). — To burn incense, or “to offer the incense”, ‘to bring a smoke-offering’ (Sranan Tongo), or, a causative verbal derivation of ‘fragrance’ (Tboli). For incense one may use the name of some locally known sweet smelling spice or sap used for fumigation, preferably in religious ceremonies, e.g. ‘benzoin’ (Bahasa Indonesia), ‘eightfold benzoin,’ an incense composed of eight ingredients, used in religious ceremonies (Balinese), or a more generic expression, e.g. ‘fragrant stuff’ (Thai) or, ‘that-which-being-burned-smells-sweet’ (Navajo).
Quoted with permission from Reiling, J. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1971. For this and other handbooks for translators see here . Make sure to also consult the Handbook on the Gospel of Mark for parallel or similar verses.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.