Ham

In the Tuvan Bible translation project, the official policy (…) was to keep the spelling of names of major characters the same as in the Russian Synodal translation. However, the translation team and representatives of local Tuvan churches agreed that deviation in proper name spelling from the RST would be allowed on a case-by-case basis if there was a concrete need to do so.

Such a need arose with the name of Noah’s son Ham (חָ֥ם) in Genesis and elsewhere in the Old Testament.

In Russian, as in English, this is transliterated with three letters — Хам (Kham). In Russian, the name of this character has entered the language with the meaning of “boorish lout, impudent person” because of how Ham treated his father; in Tuvan, however, the word Хам (Kham) already means “shaman.” Since the Tuvan people continue to practice their traditional religion in which shamans play a major role, the translation team felt that leaving the transliteration of this name with the exact spelling as in Russian might cause needless offense to Tuvan sensibilities by unwittingly causing the text of Gen. 9:20-27 to portray shamans as the targets of Noah’s curse. Therefore, the translation team chose to avoid this potential stumbling block while continuing to maintain a close sound correspondence with the name of the biblical character as Tuvan Christians already knew it from the RST text. This was done by doubling the vowel — Хаам. Tuvan has long vowel phonemes that are written with a double vowel, so this is perfectly acceptable from the point of view of Tuvan orthographic conventions.

The correspondence of the Tuvan version of the name to the Russian Synodal spelling is still recognizable, but hopefully, the wrath of Tuvan shamans and their supporters has been averted by this small disliteration.

The rationale behind such an approach to spelling changes in names is concisely described in the foreword to the Tuvan Bible for the sake of transparency

Apparently, the similarity of the English version of this name to the food item (as in “I’ll have a ham and cheese sandwich”) is not deemed offensive enough to the meat-packing industry for a similar disliteration to be performed in English Bible translations.

Source: Vitaly Voinov in The Bible Translator 2012, p. 17ff.

In Spanish Sign Language it is translated with a sign that signifies “African,” referring to passages like Psalm 105:23. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)


“Ham” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España

For more information on translations of proper names with sign language see Sign Language Bible Translations Have Something to Say to Hearing Christians .

See also Shem and Japheth.

More information on Ham (son of Noah)

complete verse (Psalm 106:22)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 106:22:

  • Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
    “miracles in the land of Ham
    and his dangerous acts on the Red Sea.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
  • Newari:
    “who had done such amazing work in the land of Ham
    and such awesome work at the Red Sea.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon:
    “They forgot the God who saved them and had-done marvelous/amazing deeds there in Egipto, the land of the descendants of Ham, and there at the Red Sea.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • Laarim:
    “He performed miracles in the land of Ham
    and a great work at Sea which is Red.” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
  • Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
    “matendo matukufu kwa watoto wa Hamu,
    ya kutisha katika Bahari nyekundu.” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
  • English:
    “They forgot about the wonderful things that he did for them in Egypt
    and the amazing/awesome things that he did for them at the Red Sea.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

work(s) (of God) (Japanese honorifics)

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 to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. When the referent is God, the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御 or み) can be used, as in mi-ude (みわざ) or “work (of God)” in the referenced verses.

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

Honorary "are" construct denoting God (“do/perform”)

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 usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme are (され) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, okonaw-are-ru (行われる) or “do/perform” is used.

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

sea / lake

The various Greek, Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew terms that are translated as “sea,” “ocean,” or “lake” in English are all translated in Chichewa with one term: nyanja. Malawi, where Chichewa is spoken, has a lot of lakes but does not share a border with the ocean. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Psalm 106:21 - 106:23

Verses 21-22 flow together (see Revised Standard Version), and a translation may seek to preserve this form, if it is not too difficult for the readers.

In verse 21a forgot repeats the accusation made in verse 7. In verse 22a the land of Ham is the same as Egypt in verse 21b (see 78.51). And great things … wondrous works … terrible things (verses 21b, 22a-b) all mean the same thing, the miracles, the marvelous things that God did. Terrible things (verse 22b) is most inappropriate in English; it is better to say “surprising” (Biblia Dios Habla Hoy) or “awesome” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New International Version); see 99.3. For Red Sea see verse 7.

Verse 23 relates how Moses persuaded God to change his mind and not destroy the people of Israel for their idolatry (see Exo 32.9-14). There is an ellipsis in Revised Standard Version (also New International Version and others) which may be misleading. The thought is that God actually did threaten to destroy them, and would have done so had not Moses…. The figure used, stood in the breach, is that of warfare, where a soldier might stand in a break made in the wall by enemy soldiers, so as to keep them from entering the city. The figure stood in the breach and Good News Translation‘s “stood up against” are picturable images of Moses’ action; however, the action consisted mainly in speaking to God on behalf of the people. Accordingly, in many languages it will be clearer to say something like “Moses stood up and argued with God” or “Moses spoke with God and persuaded him.” The expression turn away his wrath from destroying them may have to be recast to say, for example, “to keep God, who was angry with them, from killing them” or “to convince God in his anger that he should not kill them.”

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Reyburn, William D. A Handbook on the Book of Psalms. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1991. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .