complete verse (Romans 3:1)

Following are a number of back-translations of Romans 3:1:

  • Uma: “The Jews and the non-Jews are just the same, they are all guilty in God’s sight. But let’s not say/think like this, the Jews are not more blessed/fortunate than other people and there is no value to their custom of circumcision.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “Perhaps someone says that there is no good/advantage if we (dual) are of the Yahudi tribe/nation and if we (dual) follow the custom of circumcision.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And if that’s the case, it seems as if there is no value in our (excl.) being Jews and there’s also no value in our religious practice of circumcision.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Perhaps, you are saying to yourselves (lit. with your minds), ‘What then is the advantage/superiority (lit. place-of-distinguishing) of the Jew over the Gentile? Is there also no use for our getting-circumcised?'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “Concerning this word I speak, I am not saying that it is of no value in what God did in choosing the Jew and commanding them to be marked with circumcision.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

circumcise, circumcision

Click here to view graphically

The Hebrew and Greek terms that are translated as “circumcise” or “circumcision” in English (originally meaning of English term: “to cut around”) are (back-) translated in various ways:

  • Chimborazo Highland Quichua: “cut the flesh”
  • San Miguel El Grande Mixtec, Navajo (Dinė): “cut around”
  • Javanese: “clip-away”
  • Uab Meto: “pinch and cut” (usually shortened to “cut”)
  • North Alaskan Inupiatun, Western Highland Purepecha: “put the mark”
  • Tetelcingo Nahuatl: “put the mark in the body showing that they belong to God” (or: “that they have a covenant with God”)
  • Indonesian: disunat — “undergo sunat” (sunat is derived from Arabic “sunnah (سنة)” — “(religious) way (of life)”)
  • Ekari: “cut the end of the member for which one fears shame” (in Gen. 17:10) (but typically: “the cutting custom”) (source for this and above: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Hiri Motu: “cut the skin” (source: Deibler / Taylor 1977, p. 1079)
  • Garifuna: “cut off part of that which covers where one urinates”
  • Bribri: “cut the soft” (source for this and the one above: Ronald Ross)
  • Amele: deweg cagu qoc — “cut the body” (source: John Roberts)
  • Eastern Highland Otomi: “cut the flesh of the sons like Moses taught” (source: Ronald D. Olson in Notes on Translation January, 1968, p. 15ff.)
  • Newari: “put the sign in one’s body” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Central Mazahua: “sign in his flesh”
  • Hopi: “being cut in a circle in his body” (source for this and above: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
  • Mandarin Chinese: gēlǐ (割礼 / 割禮) or “rite of cutting” (Protestant); gēsǔn (割损 / 割損) or “cut + loss” (Catholic) (Source: Zetzsche)
  • Tibetan: mdun lpags gcod (མདུན་​ལྤགས་​གཅོད།), lit. “fore + skin + cut” (source: gSungrab website )
  • Kutu: “enter the cloth (=undergarments)” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Circumcision .

Translation commentary on Romans 3:1

Over the Gentiles is not an actual part of the Greek text, but it is assumed in Paul’s argument, and is made explicit in the Good News Translation. Perhaps it should be noted also, that whereas the Greek has the singular “Jew,” the Good News Translation renders by a plural Jews, because in English discourse structure this is more natural. Or is there any value in being circumcised? means “What good does it do for the Jews to be circumcised?”

This first section in Romans 3 (vv. 1-8) involves a number of structural problems, primarily because of the question-answer structure. For languages in which rhetorical questions are permitted, this is a very effective means of highlighting an issue and then providing a satisfactory response. However, for languages which do not employ this rhetorical device, it is not easy to find an appropriate and satisfactory equivalent. While it is true that some languages do not permit a rhetorical question such as Do the Jews have any advantage over the Gentiles, then?, they do permit rhetorical questions which begin with some such introductory phrase as “Do you think therefore that…?” or “Do you suppose that…?” Such a question borders on the rhetorical type of interrogation, but it is often regarded as perfectly appropriate, since it would seem natural that Paul might himself ask his audience in Rome about their reactions to such issues. It is also possible to deal with such rhetorical questions by introducing them in another manner—for example, “Someone may ask, Do the Jews have any advantage over the Gentiles?” Placing the question into the speech of someone else frequently makes it completely admissible, and it is precisely this type of question which is important in a passage such as this, in which very definite responses to the question are included in the text.

It is not always easy to find a ready equivalent to the expression have any advantage over. However, there are always ways in which the same concept may be expressed, often in an idiomatic form—for example, “how do the Jews go ahead of the Gentiles?” or “how are the Jews lifted up higher than the Gentiles?” Any value in being circumcised? may be translated as “any good to be circumcised?” or “does it help at all to be circumcised?”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .