The Hebrew, Greek, Ge’ez, and Latin that are translated as “covenant” in English are translated in a variety of ways. Here are some (back-) translations:
Natügu: nzesz’tikr drtwr: “oneness of mind” (source: Brenda Boerger in Beerle-Moor / Voinov, p. 164)
Tagalog: tipan: mutual promising on the part of two persons agreeing to do something (also has a romantic touch and denotes something secretive) (source: G. Henry Waterman in The Bible Translator 1960, p. 24ff. )
Tagbanwa: “initiated-agreement” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Cherokee: “that which is told” (source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 16)
Guhu-Samane: “The concept [in Mark 14:24 and Matthew 16:28] is not easy, but the ritual freeing of a fruit and nut preserve does afford some reference. Thus, ‘As they were drinking he said to them, ‘On behalf of many this poro provision [poro is the traditional religion] of my blood is released.’ (…) God is here seen as the great benefactor and man the grateful recipient.” (Source: Ernest Richert in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. )
Chichewa: pangano. This word can also be translated as a contract, agreement, or a treaty between two parties. In Chewa culture, two people or groups enter into an agreement to help each other in times of need. When entering into an agreement, parties look at the mutual benefits which will be gained. The agreement terms are mostly kept as a secret between the parties and the witnesses involved. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Law (2013, p. 95) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew berith was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments (click or tap here to read more):
“Right from the start we witness the influence of the Septuagint on the earliest expressions of the Christian faith. In the New Testament, Jesus speaks of his blood being a kaine diatheke, a ‘new covenant.’ The covenant is elucidated in Hebrews 8:8-12 and other texts, but it was preserved in the words of Jesus with this language in Luke 22:20 when at the Last Supper Jesus said, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Jesus’s blood was to provide the grounds for the ‘new covenant,’ in contrast to the old one his disciples knew from the Jewish scriptures (e.g., Jeremiah 31:31-34). Thus, the earliest Christians accepted the Jewish Scriptures as prophecies about Jesus and in time began to call the collection the ‘Old Testament’ and the writings about Jesus and early Christianity the ‘New Testament,’ since ‘testament’ was another word for ‘covenant.’ The covenant promises of God (berith in Hebrew) were translated in the Septuagint with the word diatheke. In classical Greek diatheke had meant ‘last will, testament,’ but in the Septuagint it is the chosen equivalent for God’s covenant with his people. The author of Hebrews plays on the double meaning, and when Luke records Jesus’ announcement at the Last Supper that his blood was instituting a ‘new covenant,’ or a ‘new testament,’ he is using the language in an explicit contrast with the old covenant, found in the Jewish scriptures. Soon, the writings that would eventually be chosen to make up the texts about the life and teachings of Jesus and the earliest expression of the Christian faith would be called the New Testament. This very distinction between the Old and New Testaments is based on the Septuagint’s language.”
The Greek and Hebrew terms that are translated as “redeem” or “redemption” in most English translations (see more on that below) are translated in Kissi as “buying back.” “Ownership of some object may be forfeited or lost, but the original owner may redeem his possession by buying it back. So God, who made us for Himself, permitted us to accept or reject Him. In order to reconcile rebellious mankind He demonstrated His redemptive love in the death of His Son on our behalf.
“The San Blas Kuna describe redemption in a more spiritual sense. They say that it consists of ‘recapturing the spirit.’ A sinful person is one in rebellion against God, and he must be recaptured by God or he will destroy himself. The need of the spirit is to be captured by God. The tragedy is that too many people find their greatest pleasure in secretly trying to elude God, as though they could find some place in the universe where He could not find them. They regard life as a purely private affair, and they object to the claims of God as presented by the church. They accuse the pastor of interfering with the privacy of their own iniquity. Such souls, if they are to be redeemed, must be ‘recaptured.'” (Source: Nida 1952, p. 138)
Click or tap here for more translations or “redeem” / “redemption”
In Ajië a term is used, nawi, that refers to the “custom of planting a small tree on land cursed either by the blood of battle or some calamity.” Clifford (1992, p. 83ff.) retells the story: “Maurice Leenhardt tells how he finally arrived at a term that would express ‘redemption.’ Previous missionaries had interpreted it as an exchange — an exchange of life, that of Jesus for ours. But in Melanesian thinking more strict equivalents were demanded in the exchanges structuring social life. It remained unclear to them how Jesus’ sacrifice could possibly redeem mankind. So unclear was it that even the natas [Melanesians pastors] gave up trying to explain a concept they did not understand very well themselves and simply employed the term “release.” So the matter stood, with the missionary driven to the use of cumbersome circumlocutions, until one day during a conversation on 1 Corinthians 1:30, [Melanesian pastor and Leenhardt’s co-worker] Boesoou Erijisi used a surprising expression: nawi. The term referred to the custom of planting a small tree on land cursed either by the blood of battle or some calamity. ‘Jesus was thus the one who has accomplished the sacrifice and has planted himself like a tree, as though to absorb all the misfortunes of men and to free the world from its taboos.’ Here at last was a concept that seemed to render the principle of ‘redemption’ and could reach deeply enough into living modes of thought. ‘The idea was a rich one, but how could I be sure I understood it right?’ The key test was in the reaction of students and natas to his provisional version. They were, he reports, overjoyed with the ‘deep’ translation.”
In Folopa, the translation team also found a deeply indigenous term. Neil Anderson (in Holzhausen 1991, p. 51) explains: “While I was explaining the meaning of the [concept] to the Folopa men, I could see their faces brighten. They said that this was a common thing among them: ‘If someone falls a tree and it tips to the wrong side, killing someone, the relatives of the injured party claim the life of the guilty party. But in order to save his life, his relatives make amends. Pigs, shells (which are still used as currency here) and other valuables are given to the relatives of the deceased as payment for the life of the guilty party. In this way he can live because others stand up for him.’ Full of joy, I began to utilize this thought to the difficult translation of the word ‘redemption.’ Mark 10:45 reads now, translated back from the Folopa: ‘Jesus came to make an atonement, by which he takes upon himself the punishment for the evil deeds of many. He came so that through his death many might be liberated.’ After working on this verse for half an hour, I read it to my friends. They became silent and moved their slightly bowed heads thoughtfully back and forth. Finally, one of them took the floor, ‘We give a lot to right a wrong. But we have never given a human being as a price of atonement. Jesus did a great work for us when he made restitution. Because he died, all of us now don’t have to bear the punishment we deserve. We are liberated.'”
In Samoan the translation is togiola which originally refers to a fine mat. John Bradshaw (in The Bible Translator 1967, p. 75ff. ) explains: “The rite of submission applies in cases of grave sin which demands an extreme punishment: offenses such as murder, adultery or disrespectful behavior towards a chief. Submission is made in expectation of forgiveness. The rite is normally enacted at dawn. The prisoner and his family, or even his whole village bow down in silence before the house of the chief or other offended party. The prisoner heads the group and is covered with a fine mat, offered as his ransom. In other words, he submits himself completely to the authority of those whom he has offended. Many such submissions have been successfully offered and received. Those inside the house will come out, and bring into it those offering submission. The priestly orators speak sweetly and all join in a meal. The fine mat is accepted, while the prisoner is set free and forgiven. He no longer goes in fear of retribution for his sin. (…) If now we turn to the relation between the believer and the Redeemer, we notice at once that the word togiola, literally the price of one’s life, was the word used to denote the fine mat with which the sinner covered himself in the rite of Submission. The acceptance of the togiola set free the prisoner. It was inevitable that togiola should render lutron, ransom, as in Matthew 20:28.”
“In Hebrew there are two terms, ga’al and padah, usually rendered ‘to redeem,’ which have likewise undergone significant changes in meaning with resulting obscurity and misunderstanding. Both terms are used in the Old Testament for a person being redeemed from slavery. In the case of padah, the primary emphasis is upon the redemption by means of payment, and in ga’al the redemption of an individual, usually by payment, is made by some relative or an individual of the same clan or society. These two words, however, are used in the Old Testament in circumstances in which there is no payment at all. For example, the redemption of Jews from Egypt is referred to by these two terms, but clearly there was no payment made to the Egyptians or to Pharaoh.
“In the New Testament a related problem occurs, for the words agorázō and exagorazó, meaning literally ‘to buy’ or ‘to buy back’ and ‘to buy out,’ were translated into Latin as redimo and into English normally as ‘redeem.’ The almost exclusive association of Latin redimo with payment became such a focal element of meaning that during the Middle Ages a theory developed that God had to pay the Devil in order to get believers out of hell and into heaven.
“As in the case of the Old Testament, New Testament contexts employing the Greek verb lutroó, literally ‘to redeem’ or ‘to ransom,’ do not refer primarily to payment but focus upon deliverance and being set free. But even today there is such a heavy tradition of the theological concept of payment that any attempt to translate lutroó as ‘to deliver’ or ‘to set free’ is misjudged by some as being heretical.” (Source: Nida 1984, p. 114f.)
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.”)
In an article from 2017, Andrew Case (in The Bible Translator 2017, p. 269ff. ) describes some of the problems of the concept of “holiness” in English as well as in translation in other languages and asks for “a creative effort to turn the tide toward a more biblical understanding. He challenges the standard understanding of God’s holiness as “separation,” “transcendence,” or “infinite purity,” and suggests that in certain contexts it also carries the meaning of “totally devoted.” (Click here to read more of his article.)
“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’.”
Tboli: “unreserved obedience” (“using a noun built on the expression ‘his breath/soul is conformed'”) (source for this and three above: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
Folopa: “separate (from sin) / pure / distinct” (source: Anderson / Moore 2006, p. 202)
Bariai: “straight” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
Khmer: visoth (វិសុទ្ធ) — “unmixed, exceptional” (rather than Buddhist concept of purity, borisoth (បរិសុទ្ធ), though the translator welcomed the fact that these words rhymed) (source: Joseph Hong in The Bible Translator 1996, p. 233ff. )
Yagaria: “alone, apart, special, separate” but also “strange, unknown” (source: Renck 1990, p. 104)
Lama: “belonging especially to God” or “set apart for God’s purposes” (source: Joshua Ham)
Naro: tcom-tcomsam — “lucky” (“the concept of holiness is unknown”) (source: van Steenbergen)
Makonde: wanaswe or “white” and kuva vya Nnungu or “belonging to God.” These choices became problematic when God is declared as holy (such as in Psalm 22:3). “The second one obviously doesn’t work since it’s God, and the second one could possibly be confused as a white god or maybe saying he’s bright. So, for the idea of holiness here we’re going for the idea of there not being anyone else like him: ‘you alone are God’.” (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
Aguaruna: “blameless” (Source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation 1970, p. 1ff.)
Highland Totonac: “that which belongs to God” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
Mofu-Gudur: pal or “one” (in instances such as Exod. 15:11 or Isaiah 6:3, where the emphasis is on “the idea of ‘alone, only, unique.’ — Source: James Pohlig)
Zulu (and Xhosa): Ngcwele — “smooth,” “beautiful,” “bright” (click or tap here):
“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 Translator1955, p. 173ff. )
Mandara: tamat (“In the Mandara culture, there is a place where only the traditional leaders of high standing can enter, and only during special feasts. This place is tamat, meaning set apart, sacred.” — Source: Karen Weaver)
Awabakal: yirri yirri — Lake (2018, p. 71) describes that choice: “As language historian Anne Keary has explained, yirri yirri meant ‘sacred, reverend, holy, not to be regarded but with awe’. It also had the more concrete meaning of an initiation site, ‘the place marked out for mystic rites, not to be profaned by common use’. As such, yirri yirri was not a generic term for ‘holy’: it invoked a specifically male spiritual domain.”
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.”
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
In Hungarian Sign Language it originates from the sign referring to purity. This symbolism is common in various sign languages, where the concept of “holy” is often derived from the signs for “clean” or “bright,” referring to moral and spiritual integrity. (Source: Jenjelvi Biblia and HSL Bible Translation Group)
The Hebraist Franz Steiner gave a series of lectures on the topic of “taboo” and the Old Testament idea of “holy” or “sacred” that are now considered classic. Steiner died shortly after giving the lectures and they were published posthumously. While he never actually arrives at an actual definition of “taboo” in his lectures the following excerpts show something of the difficult relationship between “taboo” and “qôdesh/קֹדֶשׁ” (Click or tap here):
“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)
The Hebrew text of Psalms 9/10, 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 119, and 145 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. The Natügu translation is one such exception. Boerger (see above) cites a strong tradition in singing the psalms and the fact that Natügu, like Hebrew, also has 22 possible initial letters as motivating factors to maintain the acrostics in that language.
Click or tap here for the complete psalm in Natügu
1 Awi Yawe! Glqpxku Yawe!
Bilvzx nide mz nabznge atwrnrngr, mz nzyrlwr-lxblr-krgr badr leplz nedeng.
2 Clvele nrlc x da kcng tqwz-ngrde, tqaletileng nzmyalzng.
Delc, leplz amrlx na-aotingr drtwrdr da lcng mz nzabrtzlvz-krdrleng.
3 Eu, da lcng amrlx nzaelwapx-ngrdr zmrlue x zmatq rde.
Glqpxku nztubq-krde kc tqvzpe tqvzpe.
4 Ipqle nigu mz zmrlz ngrde kxmyalz x ycngr drtwrde nigu.
Jzsle nigu x nayc zvz mz drtwrgu rkx ngrdeng.
5 Kabzle dakxnzng mz leplz kcng tzamrluelr nide.
Lolvz-amqngile mz drtwrde da kx esalz-ngrbzle badr.
6 Mz nzaprc-krbzle drtc’ ngr lr mrkzbleng mz doa nedeng,
Nide kc tqaelwapx-ngrbzle zmatq rde badr.
7 Okatrle nidr mz nzaclve-krdeng kxtubq.
Prlxpx-zvzle da angidr x nzrsakrlrngr.
8 Rkapx zvz natq kx rsakrlrngr.
Sa na-atutrleng murde nqmq krde mrlz x tubq.
9-10 Takitrde nzangio-krgu drtqde kxtr mz nzamrluengr murde
Vz-nqblq-zvzle nzesalz-krde x
Witi nelzde nzarlapx-krde leplz nedeng.
X aelwapx-ngrgu nzyrplapx-krgu mz nzamrlue-krgu nide.
Yawe kabzle nzrkrlz-angidrngr mz krkcng tzyrlq-angidrlr natqde.
Zbq kalvz nzrglqpxngr nide navz zvz x tqvzpe, tqvzpe.
The DanishBibelen på Hverdagsdansk (publ. 1985, rev. 2015 et al.) translated Psalm 111 into an acrostic. Iver Larsen who worked in this translation explained (in Roelie Van der Spuy in Old Testament Essays 2008, p. 513ff. ) the choice of letters: “We don’t use c, q, w, x and z. On the other hand we do use the extra Danish vowel symbols æ, ø and å, and the y is a vowel, not a consonant. Since Danish has more than 22 letters, we cannot use all the letters, so among those last ones (æ, ø, å) I chose what fits best.”
Click or tap here for the complete psalm in Danish with its English translation
1. Af hele mit hjerte vil jeg takke Herren,
[From all of my heart I will thank the Lord]
berømme ham midt i de gudfrygtiges forsamling.
[extol him in the midst of the assembly of the God-fearing.[
2. De ting, han gør, er vidunderlige,
[The things he does are wonderful,[
enhver, der oplever dem, må juble og glæde sig.
[all who experience them rejoice and are happy.]
3. Fantastiske er alle hans undere,
[All his wonders are fantastic,]
glem ikke hans uendelig godhed.
[never forget his unending goodness.]
4. Herren er nådig og barmhjertig,
[The Lord is compassionate and merciful]
ingen må glemme hans velgerninger.
[no one should ever forget his good deeds.]
5. Jeg ved, at han altid sørger for sit folk.
[I know that he always provides for his people,]
Kan han nogensinde glemme sin pagt med dem?
[Could he ever forget his covenant with them?]
6. Landet, som tilhørte de fremmede, gav han til sit eget folk,
[The land that belonged to foreigners he gave to his own people,]
med magt drev han de andre væk for øjnene af sine udvalgte.
[he forced them away before the eyes of his chosen ones.]
7. Når han handler, gør han altid det rigtige,
[When he acts, he always does what is right,]
ordene fra ham kan man stole på.
[his words are trustworthy.]
8. Pas på, at I trofast adlyder hans bud,
[Be careful to faithfully obey his commands,]
retsindighed har evighedsværdi.
[uprightness/justice is of eternal value.]
9. Sit folk har han sat i frihed,
[He has given his people their freedom,]
til evig tid varer hans pagt med dem.
[his covenant with them will last forever.]
Underfuld og hellig er Herren.
[Wonderful and holy is the Lord.]
10. Visdom udspringer af ærefrygt for Gud.
[Wisdom results from respectfully honoring God.]
Ypperlig er den indsigt, man får ved at adlyde ham.
[The insight you get from obeying him is superb.]
Æren er hans for evigt!
[He is to be honored forever!]
There are two Dutch translations that maintain the acrostic: Naardense Bijbel (publ. 2004) and the Tot Lof van God by Frans Croese (publ. 2010).
Click or tap here for the complete psalm in the Dutch translations
Naardense Bijbel:
1
Alleluia, ik dank de Ene van ganser harte, ✡
binnen de kring der oprechten,
een samenkomst;
2
groot zijn de daden van de Ene, ✡
doorvorsbaar
voor elk met behagen daarin;
3
en glans en luister straalt van zijn werk, ✡
fleur houdt zijn gerechtigheid
voor altijd;
4
genadig en barmhartig is de Ene, ✡
hij doet zijn wonderen voorgoed gedenken;
5
indachtig is hij voor eeuwig zijn verbond, ✡
ja, wie hem vrezen gaf hij teerkost; de
6
kracht van zijn daden
heeft hij zijn gemeente gemeld; ✡
leende hun
het erfdeel van volkeren;
7
machtig zijn zijn handen in trouw en recht, ✡
nooit onbetrouwbaar zijn
al zijn inzettingen;
8
ondersteund voor altijd en eeuwig, ✡
product
van trouw en oprechtheid;
9
redding, loskoop zond hij zijn gemeente,
sloot voor eeuwig zijn verbond, ✡
te vrezen en heilig is zijn naam!-
10
vreze voor de Ene
is het beginsel van wijsheid,
weg tot goed inzicht
voor wie daarnaar dóen; ✡
zijn lof
blijft staande voor altíjd!
Tot Lof van God translation:
Looft Jah!
Aan Jehovah betuig ik dank, van ganser harte prijs ik Hem,
bij het beraad der oprechten, maar ook in vergadering bijeen.
2
De daden van Jehovah zijn waarlijk groots,
en fascinerend voor een ieder die er behagen in schept.
3
Fenomenaal is Zijn werk in luister en pracht,
gezien ook Zijn rechtvaardigheid die voor alle eeuwigheid staat.
4
Hij stelde voor Zijn wonderdaden een gedachtenis in
– inderdaad, Jehovah is goedgunstig en barmhartig,
5
ja, zoals Hij proviand verschafte aan hen die Hem vreesden –
kortom, Hij zal Zijn verbond voor altijd gedenken.
6
Louter de kracht van Zijn daden al, zoals Hij die Zijn volk verhaalde,
met daarbij hetgeen Hij hun gaf: het erfdeel der natiën.
7
Naar waarheid en recht, dat zijn de werken van Zijn handen;
onveranderlijk zijn al Zijn voorschriften,
8
pal en onwrikbaar staan die, voor altijd en eeuwig;
recht en waarachtig, zo zijn zc gemaakt.
9
Schonk Hij Zijn volk destijds de verlossing,
toen was daar tevens Zijn blijvend verbond.
Uniek, ontzagwekkend en heilig, dat is Zijn naam.
10
Vrees voor Jehovah is het begin van de wijsheid,
waarbij allen scherp van inzicht zijn die daar ook naar doen.
Zijn lof staat voor alle eeuwigheid!
With thanks to Thamara van Eijzeren
In the Zürich German dialect (Züritüütsch) of Swiss German, the Psalms were translated while maintaining the acrostic by Josua Boesch (publ. 2009 ).
Click or tap here for the complete psalm in Zürich German
1 Halleluja! ER isch is mee wèrt als ales.
Au iich wil IMM tanke vo ganzem hèrze,
Bi siine friind i siinere gmäind.
2 Chumm lueg, was èr ales ttaa hät für öis.
Die, wo s ggluschtet, psined sich drüber.
3 ER hat ales herrlich und schöön gmacht.
Für eewig bliibt siini grächtigkäit fescht.
4 Gaar nie wil iich sini wunder vergässe.
Häsch ghöört, ER isch barmhèrzig und güetig.
5 I siinere hand isch z ässe fur d fründ.
Käine chunnt z chuurz, èr haltet s verschpräche.
6 Lueg, was er mit chraft fur siis volk tuet,
Mit welere liebi èr ine s land gitt.
7 Nüüt isch nöd zueverlèèssig und rächt vo dèm, won er gmacht hät.
Ooni siis soorge hett ales kä sinn.
8 Probier nöd z flicken a siineren oornihg, suscht hebt si nöd eewig.
Rue hetsch au nümen und ales gieng schieff.
9 Siim volk hät èr emaal d freihäit ggèè.
Tänk doch an bund, won èr mit em gschlosse.
Uurhäilig isch IMM sini nööchi bi öis.
10 Vo aafang aa hämer nur INN als mitti vo öisere wiishäit.
Wèr siich dernaa richtet, hät s imer guet.
Zum schluss wämer inn rüeme imer und eewig, ER isch is mee wèrt als ales.
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). Due to the higher number of letters in the English alphabet, it skips the letters J, Q, X, and Z. (Click or tap here for the complete psalm in the Knox translation.)
1 All my heart goes out to the Lord in praise, Before the assembly where the just are gathered.
2 Chant we the Lord’s wondrous doings, delight and study of all who love him.
3 Ever his deeds are high and glorious, faithful he abides to all eternity.
4 Great deeds, that he keeps still in remembrance!
5 He, the Lord, is kind and merciful. In abundance he fed the men who feared him, keeping his covenant for ever.
6 Lordly the power he shewed his people,
7 making the lands of the heathen their possession. No act but shews him just and faithful; of his decrees there is no relenting.
8 Perpetual time shall leave them changeless; right and truth are their foundation.
9 So he has brought our race deliverance; to all eternity stands his covenant. Unutterable is his name and worshipful;
10 vain without his fear is learning. Wise evermore are you who follow it; yours the prize that lasts for ever. (Source )
Another English translation that maintains the acrostic is by Gordon Jackson (The Lincoln Psalter, 1997). (Click or tap here for the complete psalm in the Jackson translation.)
Hallelujah!
All that I am I offer in praise of the Lord,
Being in the band of the blessed, all good men and true.
Can we give adequate, accurate praise for his works?
Dearer and dearer he is to us, as we consider them.
Exalt him as much as we may he is always more worthy
For the meters of mortals are useless to measure his good with.
Great is his name, and yet he deserves a far greater;
Heaven’s his nickname, and Holiness, Mercy, Truth, Grace.
If those who fear him hunger, see how he feeds them!
Keeping his word for his own honour’s sake;
Look how he gave his people the lands of others,
Making them gifts of cities by his own strength.
Nothing he does that is not done deeply with justice;
On stone his laws are written, and they will not adjust;
People and fashions will change, but not his wisdom;
Right is right with him, and truth is truth.
Saving his people again and again he is faithful
To a promise his people have broken again and again.
Unworthy as we are, his holy name honours us;
Vital wisdom it is that we trust him and fear him,
Wanting his teaching, enjoying our own understanding,
Yielding our wisdom to his, and gaining by giving.
And lastly, Brenda Boerger (2024) translated this psalm while maintaining the acrostic:
1 Allelu-Yah! O, praise th’almighty King!
Bless him! I’ll let all my thanksgivings ring;
Companions of faith will join us and sing.
2 Dynamic — God’s deeds in every detail,
Eagerly studied in all they entail,
For deep delight is found there without fail.
3 God’s glory glows from every endeavor;
His righteous holiness lasts forever.
4 Incomparable marvels make us recall,
Just, gentle, good Yahweh, is Lord of all.
5 Kind Yahweh feeds all those who revere him,
Loyally keeps his pledge, draws us near him.
6 Manifesting immense might to his clan,
Now we inherit other nations’ land.
7 Outstanding loyalty, justice renowned;
Precepts proven to rest on solid ground,
Quintessentially trustworthy and sound.
8 Righteous, reliable, bound together;
Securely they stand, established forever.
9 Truly he triumphed in saving his sheep,
Upheld his covenant, ordained to keep;
Victoriously, it is ever the same.
Wonderful, holy, and awesome’s his name!
10 Exalting Yahweh shows wisdom’s growing;
Yielding means understanding is flowing.
Zealously then, let his praise be on-going.
Another published English translation with acrostics is The Psalms Chronologically Arranged by the “Four Friends” (C.T. Arnold, A.W. Potts, F.E. Kitchener, S. Philpotts) of 1870.
Another 19th century translation with maintained acrostics is the German1883 commentary and translation by Franz Delitzsch . Unlike the other translations, he translates the acrostics of this and the other acrostic psalms by following an approximation of the German sound of the 22 letters (alef/א = a; bet/ב = b; gimel/ג = g; dalet/ד = d; he/ה = h; vav/ו = u; zayin/ז = s; chet/ח = h; tet/ט = t; yod/י = i or j; kaf/כ = k; lamed/ל = l; mem/מ = m; nun/נ = n; samech/ס = s; ayin/ע = e; pe/פ = f; tsadi/צ = z; qof/ק = k; resh/ר = r; shin/ש = sch; tav/ת = t).
This blog post mentions several English translation of Psalm 111 with an acrostic that were not published in official Bible translations. The above-quoted Van der Spuy also has his own Afrikaans translation with an acrostic (quoted in Old Testament Essays 2008, p. 513ff. ).
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 111:9:
Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
“He redeems his people;
he established his agreement forever
his name is holy and dangerous.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Newari:
“He paid the price and set His people free,
and He has established a covenant with them for all time.
He is holy and is One to be honored.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon:
“He saved his people,
and he made an agreement with them which has-no end.
He (is) holy and awesome.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Laarim:
“God saved his people,
and he promised said that,
his covenant will stay with them forever,
his names are holy, and has authority.” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
“Aliwaokoa watu wake,
aliamuru agano lake ili liwe la milele na milele,
jina lake takatifu tena tukufu.” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
English:
“He rescued us, his people, from being slaves in Egypt,
and he made an agreement with us that will last forever.
He is holy and awesome!” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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-sumai (御民) or “people (of God)” in the referenced verses.
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 rare (られ) 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, sadame-rare-ru (定められる) or “appoint/ordain” is used.
God transcends gender, but most languages are limited to grammatical gender expressed in pronouns. In the case of English, this is traditionally confined to “he” (or in the forms “his,” “him,” and “himself”), “she” (and “her,” “hers,” and “herself”), and “it” (and “its” and “itself”).
Modern Mandarin Chinese, however, offers another possibility. Here, the third-person singular pronoun is always pronounced the same (tā), but it is written differently according to its gender (他 is “he,” 她 is “she,” and 它/牠 is “it” and their respective derivative forms). In each of these characters, the first (or upper) part defines the gender (man, woman, or thing/animal), while the second element gives the clue to its pronunciation.
In 1930, after a full century with dozens of Chinese translations, Bible translator Wang Yuande (王元德) coined a new “godly” pronoun: 祂. Chinese readers immediately knew how to pronounce it: tā. But they also recognized that the first part of that character, signifying something spiritual, clarified that each person of the Trinity has no gender aside from being God.
While the most important Protestant and Catholic Chinese versions respectively have opted not to use 祂, some Bible translations do and it is widely used in hymnals and other Christian materials. Among the translations that use 祂 to refer to “God” were early versions of Lü Zhenzhong’s (呂振中) version (New Testament: 1946, complete Bible: 1970). R.P. Kramers (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 152ff. ) explains why later versions of Lü’s translation did not continue with this practice: “This new way of writing ‘He,’ however, has created a minor problem of its own: must this polite form be used whenever Jesus is referred to? Lü follows the rule that, wherever Jesus is referred to as a human being, the normal tā (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential tā (祂) is used.”
In that system, one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and others for natural elements, non-liquid masses, and some spiritual entities (one other is used for large animals and another one for miscellaneous items). While in these languages the pronoun for spiritual entities used to be employed when referring to God, this has changed into the use of the human pronoun.
Lynell Zogbo (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 401ff. ) explains: “From informal discussions with young Christians especially, it would appear that, at least for some people, the experience and/or concepts of Christianity are affecting the choice of pronoun for God. Some people explain that God is no longer ‘far away,’ but is somehow tangible and personal. For these speakers God has shifted over into the human category.”
In Kouya, God (the Father) and Jesus are referred to with the human pronoun ɔ, whereas the Holy Spirit is referred to with a non-human pronoun. (Northern Grebo and Western Krahn make a similar distinction.)
Eddie Arthur, a former Kouya Bible translation consultant, says the following: “We tried to insist that this shouldn’t happen, but the Kouya team members were insistent that the human pronoun for the Spirit would not work.”
In Burmese, the pronoun ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) is used either as 2nd person (you) or 3rd person (he, him, his) reference. “This term clearly has its root in the religious language in Burmese. No ordinary persons are addressed or known by this pronoun because it is reserved for Buddhist monks, famous religious teachers, and in the case of Christianity, the Trinity.” (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff. )
In Thai, the pronoun phra`ong (พระองค์) is used, a gender-neutral pronoun which must refer to a previously introduced royal or divine being. Similarly, in Northern Khmer, which is spoken in Thailand, “an honorific divine pronoun” is used for the pronoun referring to the persons of the Trinity (source: David Thomas in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 445 ). In Urak Lawoi’, another language spoken in Thailand, the translation often uses tuhat (ตูฮัด) — “God” — ”as a divine pronoun where Thai has phra’ong even though it’s actually a noun.” (Source for Thai and Urak Lawoi’: Stephen Pattemore)
The English “Contemporary Torah” addresses the question of God and gendered pronouns by mostly avoiding pronouns in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (unless God is referred to as “lord,” “father,” “king,” or “warrior”). It does that by either using passive constructs (“He gave us” vs. “we were given”), by using the adjective “divine” or by using “God” rather than a pronoun.
Some Protestant and Orthodox English Bibles use a referential capitalized spelling when referring to the persons of the Trinity with “He,” “His,” “Him,” or “Himself.” This includes for instance the New American Standard Bible or The Orthodox New Testament, but most translations do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are Twents as well as the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In the latter two languages this follows the language usage according to the Qur’an, which in turn predicts that usage (see Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 442ff. and The Bible Translator 1997, p. 433ff. ).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.