The Hebrew olah (עֹלָה) originally means “that which goes up (in smoke).” English Bibles often translates it as “burnt-offering” or “whole burnt-offering,” focusing on the aspect of the complete burning of the offering.
The GreekSeptuagint and the LatinVulgate Bibles translate it as holokautōma / holocautōsis (ὁλοκαύτωμα / ὁλοκαύτωσις) and holocaustum, respectively, meaning “wholly burnt.” While a form of this term is widely used in many Romance languages (Spanish: holocaustos, French: holocaustes, Italian: olocausti, Portuguese: holocaustos) and originally also in the Catholic tradition of English Bible translations, it is largely not used in English anymore today (the preface of the revised edition of the Catholic New American Bible of 2011: “There have been changes in vocabulary; for example, the term ‘holocaust’ is now normally reserved for the sacrilegious attempt to destroy the Jewish people by the Third Reich.”)
Since translation into Georgian was traditionally done on the basis of the Greek Septuagint, a transliteration of holokautōma was used as well, which was changed to a translation with the meaning of “burnt offering” when the Old Testament was retranslated in the 1980’s on the basis of the Hebrew text.
In the Koongo (Ki-manianga) translation by the Alliance Biblique de la R.D. Congo (publ. in 2015) olah is translated as “kill and offer sacrifice” (source: Anicet Bassilua) and in Elhomwe as “fire offering.” (Source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
The English translation of Everett Fox uses offering-up (similarly, the German translation by Buber-Rosenzweig has Darhöhung and the French translation by Chouraqui montée).
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 51:16:
Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
“You are not pleased with ordinary sacrifices.
If I gave a burnt sacrifice, You are not pleased with it.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Newari:
“You do not rejoice at the offering of sacrifices,
You also do not rejoice in burnt offerings.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon:
“You (sing.) do- not -like/want/desire sacrifices/offerings.
Even-if I offer to you (sing.) a burnt offering, you (sing.) will- not -be-pleased/be-glad.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Laarim:
“You are not glad when I give the thing of sacrifice,
or I would give it.
You do not want the animal for sacrifice which is roasted.” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
“Hupendezwi na dhabihu, ingekuwa nimekutolea,
dhabihu za kuteketezwa hupendezwi.” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
English:
“You are not pleased only with the sacrifices that people bring to you.
If that were enough to please you, I would bring you sacrifices.
You are not pleased with burnt offerings alone.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed.
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or modern English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.
As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.
In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.
Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”
In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.
Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking.” (Source Philip Noss)
In the most recent Manchu translation of 1835 (a revision of an earlier edition from 1822), God is never addressed with a pronoun but with “father” (ama /ᠠᠮᠠ) instead. Chengcheng Liu (in this post on the Cambridge Centre for Chinese Theology blog ) explains: “In Manchu tradition, as in Chinese etiquette, second-person pronouns could be considered disrespectful when speaking to superiors or spiritual beings. Manchu Shamanist prayers avoided si [‘you’] and sini [‘your’] for this very reason. To use them for God would be, in Lipovzoff’s [one of the two translators] words, ‘the most uncouth and indecent way to speak to the Almighty — as if He were a servant or slave.’ There was also a grammatical problem. In Manchu, si and sini could refer to both singular and plural subjects. For a faith that insisted on the singularity of God, this was potentially confusing. By contrast, repeating ama removed any ambiguity.”
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, nozom-are-ru (望まれる) or “desire/hope” is used.
The prayer ends with a recognition of the kind of sacrifice that God approves of; God does not want dead animals burned on the altar or other ritual sacrifices. In a typical way of speaking, the psalmist is not (as it might appear) saying that God wants all sacrifices to cease; he is saying that God prefers the proper attitude which the offering of sacrifices should express and represent (see similar sentiments in 50.8-9). For a discussion of sacrifice and burnt offering, see 40.6. Here also, the translator should faithfully represent the meaning of the text. Good News Translation has tried to make the meaning clear by placing “or I would offer them” at the close of the first line instead of connecting it with the second line, as Revised Standard Version does (were I to give …).
In verse 17a the Hebrew text is “The sacrifices of God,” which Revised Standard Version represents by The sacrifice acceptable to God; also New Jerusalem Bible “True sacrifice to God.” New International Version “The sacrifices of God (are a broken spirit)” is a most unnatural statement. Dahood takes the word for “God,” ʾelohim, here as a superlative, “the finest sacrifices.” By a change of the final vowel of the Hebrew word the meaning becomes “My sacrifice, O God” (Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, New English Bible).16-17 Hebrew Old Testament Text Project stays with the Masoretic text (“A” decision), “God’s sacrifices”; in the context “God’s sacrifices are a broken spirit” means “the sacrifices God requires (or, desires) are a broken spirit.”
God wants a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, that is, expressions of repentance and humility before the Almighty. In many languages it is not possible to speak of a spirit as being “humble,” much less broken. In this context it will frequently be necessary to avoid the word spirit, which would mean a kind of inferior, nonphysical being, and say “humble heart.” The concept “humble” is sometimes expressed idiomatically as “not making oneself to appear big,” or “having a low heart,” or “one who speaks softly.” In some languages it will be unnatural to follow the Hebrew pattern, which uses a negative to affirm a previous statement. In this way thou wilt not despise is more naturally shifted to a positive statement; for example, “O God, you will gladly accept a broken and contrite heart.” A broken and contrite heart refers to a person who is genuinely sad and repentant for his sin. And so the second half of verse 17 may be rendered, for example, “O God, you will gladly accept a person who is sorry for his sin and has repented.”
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 .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.