justification, justify

Click here to view graphically

The Greek that is translated as “justify” in English is translated into Tzotzil in two different ways. One of those is with Lec xij’ilatotic yu’un Dios ta sventa ti ta xc’ot ta o’ntonal ta xch’unel ti Jesucristoe (“we are seen well by God because of our faith in Jesus Christ”) (source: Aeilts, p. 118) and the other is “God sees as righteous” (source: Ellis Deibler in Notes on Translation July, 1967, p. 5ff.).

Other (back-) translations include:

sin

The Hebrew and Greek that is typically translated as “sin” in English has a wide variety of translations.

The Greek ἁμαρτάνω (hamartanō) carries the original verbatim meaning of “miss the mark” and likewise, many translations contain the “connotation of moral responsibility.”

  • Loma: “leaving the road” (which “implies a definite standard, the transgression of which is sin”)
  • Navajo (Dinė): “that which is off to the side” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Toraja-Sa’dan: kasalan, originally meaning “transgression of a religious or moral rule” and in the context of the Bible “transgression of God’s commandments” (source: H. van der Veen in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 21ff. )
  • Kaingang: “break God’s word”
  • Sandawe: “miss the mark” (like the original meaning of the Greek term) (source for this and above: Ursula Wiesemann in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 36ff., 43)

In Shipibo-Conibo the term is hocha. Nida (1952, p. 149) tells the story of its choosing: “In some instances a native expression for sin includes many connotations, and its full meaning must be completely understood before one ever attempts to use it. This was true, for example, of the term hocha first proposed by Shipibo-Conibo natives as an equivalent for ‘sin.’ The term seemed quite all right until one day the translator heard a girl say after having broken a little pottery jar that she was guilty of ‘hocha.’ Breaking such a little jar scarcely seemed to be sin. However, the Shipibos insisted that hocha was really sin, and they explained more fully the meaning of the word. It could be used of breaking a jar, but only if the jar belonged to someone else. Hocha was nothing more nor less than destroying the possessions of another, but the meaning did not stop with purely material possessions. In their belief God owns the world and all that is in it. Anyone who destroys the work and plan of God is guilty of hocha. Hence the murderer is of all men most guilty of hocha, for he has destroyed God’s most important possession in the world, namely, man. Any destructive and malevolent spirit is hocha, for it is antagonistic and harmful to God’s creation. Rather than being a feeble word for some accidental event, this word for sin turned out to be exceedingly rich in meaning and laid a foundation for the full presentation of the redemptive act of God.”

In Warao it is translated as “bad obojona.” Obojona is a term that “includes the concepts of consciousness, will, attitude, attention and a few other miscellaneous notions.” (Source: Henry Osborn in The Bible Translator 1969, p. 74ff. ). See other occurrences of Obojona in the Warao New Testament.

Martin Ehrensvärd, one of the translators for the Danish Bibelen 2020, comments on the translation of this term: “We would explain terms, such that e.g. sin often became ‘doing what God does not want’ or ‘breaking God’s law’, ‘letting God down’, ‘disrespecting God’, ‘doing evil’, ‘acting stupidly’, ‘becoming guilty’. Now why couldn’t we just use the word sin? Well, sin in contemporary Danish, outside of the church, is mostly used about things such as delicious but unhealthy foods. Exquisite cakes and chocolates are what a sin is today.” (Source: Ehrensvärd in HIPHIL Novum 8/2023, p. 81ff. )

See also sinner.

complete verse (Romans 3:20)

Following are a number of back-translations of Romans 3:20:

  • Uma: “There is not one who is upright in God’s sight from their following of the Lord’s Law. For it is from the Lord’s Law that we come to know that we have sinned.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “For there is really no person forgiven and considered/regarded straight by God because of his following the law of God but because of the law of God hep do we (incl.) know (lit. is the underlying-reason we (incl.) know) that we (incl.) are sinful.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “For there isn’t any person who can be considered righteous by God by means of his obeying the Law, because he always breaks the Law. The reason the Law was given was so that we (incl.) might see that we (incl.) break the Law of God.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Because there is no person whom God counts as righteous on account of his obeying the law, because the use of the law is only to make-known to a person that he has sin.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “Concerning all the good which is commanded by the law which the Jews follow, no one comes out that does it. Therefore whoever says that he lives according to what the law commands still cannot save his soul. Because God gives the law in order that we know that we have sin.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

law

The Greek that is translated in English as “Law” or “law” is translated in Mairasi as oro nasinggiei or “prohibited things” (source: Enggavoter 2004) and in Noongar with a capitalized form of the term for “words” (Warrinya) (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).

In Yucateco the phrase that is used for “law” is “ordered-word” (for “commandment,” it is “spoken-word”) (source: Nida 1947, p. 198) and in Central Tarahumara it is “writing-command.” (wsource: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)

See also teaching / law (of God) (Japanese honorifics).

Translation commentary on Romans 3:20

The scripture quotation in this verse comes from Psalm 143.2, with one significant addition: by doing what the Law requires. This phrase (literally “works of the Law”) has reference to those things done in obedience to the Law and which may be looked upon in themselves as a means of establishing one in a right relationship with God.

Put right (in God’s sight) renders the same verb that was used in 1.17. It will be further discussed in 3.24. Once again Paul reminds his readers that the purpose of the Law is not to give men salvation, but to make them know that they have sinned.

The basic relationship in the first part of verse 20 is that of result and means. By doing what the Law requires is the means of the first part of the sentence, though in a sense it is not the means, since no man is by this means put right in God’s sight. This relationship may be expressed in some languages as “just because a man does what the Law requires does not mean that he is put right with God.” In some languages this may be expressed as a condition—for example, “If a man does what the Law requires, that still does not mean that he is put right with God.”

Since the second part of verse 20 is in contrast with the first, it may be necessary to introduce some adversative particle such as “but,” “rather,” or “on the other hand”—for example, “rather, the Law causes men to know that they have sinned.”

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 .