Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Malachi 1:12:
Kupsabiny: “But you certainly do not honor me when you give me food that is not good to become sacrifices because you think that that altar place is not good/worthy/fitting.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “You, however, by saying ‘the LORD’S table is defiled’ and ‘the food on it also is defiled you are showing contempt to my name.’ ” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “But you (plur.) on-the-other-hand you (plur.) put-to-shame my name by saying that my altar (is) dirty and what are-being-offered there have no value.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “But as for you, you mock/belittle-me because-of your saying that the altar and the food that was offered there is filthy.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
English: “But you priests show that you despise me by what you do. You say, ‘It is all right if people pollute the altar by bringing sacrifices that are unacceptable.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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.”
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.
Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.
One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a first person singular and plural pronoun (“I” and “we” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used watashi/watakushi (私) is typically used when the speaker is humble and asking for help. In these verses, where God / Jesus is referring to himself, watashi is also used but instead of the kanji writing system (私) the syllabary hiragana (わたし) is used to distinguish God from others.
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).
But you profane it: The pronoun you is plural and refers to the priests, as in verses 6-10. It is emphatic in Hebrew and underlines the contrast between the way the heathen conduct their worship as described in verse 11 and the attitudes of the priests of Israel toward the worship of the LORD. The pronoun it refers grammatically to “my name” in verse 11, which stands for the LORD himself. Several versions translate it as “me” and this is perfectly acceptable (Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, Contemporary English Version, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1. Edition, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). The statement you profane it echoes the thought of 1.7, though the Hebrew verb is not the same. Good News Translation expresses the meaning in more common language when it says “you dishonor me.”
When you say that the LORD’s table is polluted: These words also echo the thoughts of the last part of verse 7, though not in the same words. The Hebrew word here translated when you say is translated “By thinking” in verse 7 and could be rendered “when you think” here. Again the prophet is criticizing the attitudes of the priests rather than their words.
Translators should note that Revised Standard Version contains a printing error here when it puts LORD‘s in capital letters. The Hebrew text does not have the divine personal name YHWH here, but rather the ordinary word for LORD, which is ʾadonay. This error is corrected in New Revised Standard Version, which has “the LORD’s table.” As in verse 7, the LORD’s table refers to the altar, and is translated that way in Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Bible en français courant, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente. Again, “my altar” (Good News Translation) is a possible translation.
Polluted is better translated “defiled” (Moffatt, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible/Revised English Bible, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), or even “nothing special” (Contemporary English Version). Compare the notes on verse 7. The first part of this verse may then be alternatively translated as “But you priests dishonor me [or, make me lose face] when you think, ‘There’s nothing special about the LORD’s altar.’ ”
And the food for it may be despised: There is a problem in the Hebrew text underlying this clause. As the Revised Standard Version footnote indicates, the Hebrew contains a rare word that may be understood to mean “its fruit.” This word makes the Hebrew grammar awkward without adding anything significant to the sense of the clause, and Revised Standard Version therefore omits it. The footnote in New Revised Standard Version indicates that the ancient Syriac translation and the Aramaic Targum appear to have followed a Hebrew text that did not include the problem word. The ancient Greek and Latin versions also had difficulties at this point, but do not offer any good evidence for deciding what the original Hebrew text was.
Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament recommends retaining the problem word, and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends translating the Hebrew text “its produce was despised as food.” The argument behind this rendering is that the priests, who had formerly depended on their share of the sacrificial offerings for their livelihood, had by this time become so wealthy that they no longer needed their share of the sacrifices. They had therefore become very casual about the quality of the sacrificial animals, and in this way dishonored the LORD. While this view cannot be ruled out, it seems unnecessarily complicated, and the immediate context does not offer any reason to suppose that wealth was the cause of the priestly slackness. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament refers only to other parts of the Old Testament to support its view. Verhoef retains the problem word, but takes the simpler view that it is to be understood as referring to the other noun (food in Revised Standard Version). A view similar to this appears to be behind the rendering of New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh “the meat, the food can be treated with scorn.”
Translators should accept the traditional Hebrew text, but since the two nouns that occur together are very close in meaning, they may be translated by a single noun, perhaps with a descriptive phrase added, such as “and the food offered on it [that is, the altar] can be treated carelessly.” Other possibilities are “you may offer on the altar second class food” (Bible en français courant), “… food of inferior quality” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1. Edition), or “… food that you don’t think much of” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente).
Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Malachi. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
But you: The pronoun you is emphatic here and refers to the priests. The disrespectful actions of the priests are contrasted with the respect that other nations gave to the LORD (1:11).
profane: The verb which the Berean Standard Bible translates as profane means “profane, dishonor, treat as unholy/common.” The same verb is used in 2:10d and 2:11c.
it: There is a textual issue in this verse. Scholars do not agree about whether the object of “profane” should be “it” or “me.” So there are two options:
(1) The object should be “it.” The pronoun “it” refers to the LORD’s name. For example:
But you are profaning it. (NET Bible)
(2) The object should be “me,” that is, the LORD. For example:
But you don’t honor me. (New Century Version)
It is recommended that you follow option (1), as it seems to be the more likely solution to the textual issue.
However there is very little difference in meaning between the two options. The pronoun it here refers to the LORD’s name, and the LORD’s name is a way to refer to the LORD himself. Therefore, it is acceptable to follow option (2) if it would be more natural and clearer in your language.
1:12b
The table of the Lord: This is the altar on which sacrifices were offered to God in the temple. This is a figure of speech for the whole act of offering sacrifices to God. See the note on 1:7c.
Lord: The Hebrew word which the Berean Standard Bible translates as Lord here is ʾadonay. This title refers to God as “lord/master.” It is different from his personal name Yahweh. Both terms refer to God.
Notice that in 1:7c, the Hebrew expression which the Berean Standard Bible translates as “table of the LORD” does indeed use Yahweh. So 1:7c and 1:12b differ in the Hebrew text. Try to preserve this distinction in your translation. See the discussion of these terms in the Key biblical terms in the book of Malachi section in the Introduction.
defiled: This is the same verb as in 1:7a and 1:7b.
General Comment on 1:12b
Notice that the LORD continued to refer to himself as though he were talking about someone else. If that is confusing in your language, it may be necessary to indicate that he was talking about himself. For example:
But you dishonor me when you say that my altar is worthless and when you offer on it food that you despise. (Good News Translation) -or-
But you insult me when you say that it does not matter what kind of sacrifices you offer to me, the Lord.
1:12c
and as for its fruit, its food is contemptible: That is, it does not matter what kind of worthless food/offering you bring to give to God. The food spoken of here is the meat (animal) and cereal offerings which the priests placed upon the altar.
contemptible: This is the same Hebrew verb as in 1:6f, 1:7c, also 2:9a.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.