In Kadiwéu, it is not possible to use a rhetorical question for the purpose of linking subjects as is done in this case in the Greek (and English) text. In this case, the link was maintained by omitting the question, making a statement concerning the basis upon which God accepts us, and then raising the potential objection. The verse then became “God accepts us because He is very good to us (grace), He does not accept us because (for reason that) we obey the Law that Moses brought. Does it matter, then, if we do what is bad?” (Source: Glyn Griffiths in Notes on Translation June 1986, p. 25ff.)
“The Greek word charis, usually translated by English ‘grace,’ is one of the desperations of translators. The area of meaning is exceptionally extensive. Note the following possible meanings for this word in various contexts of the New Testament: ‘sweetness,’ ‘charm,’ ‘loveliness,’ ‘good-will,’ ‘loving-kindness,’ ‘favor,’ ‘merciful kindness,’ ‘benefit,’ ‘gift,’ ‘benefaction,’ ‘bounty,’ and ‘thanks.’ The theological definition of ‘unmerited favor’ (some translators have attempted to employ this throughout) is applicable to only certain contexts. Moreover, it is quite a task to find some native expression which will represent the meaning of ‘unmerited favor.’ In some languages it is impossible to differentiate between ‘grace’ and ‘kindness.’ In fact, the translation ‘kindness’ is in some cases quite applicable. In other languages, a translation of ‘grace’ is inseparable from ‘goodness.’ In San Miguel El Grande Mixtec a very remarkable word has been used for ‘grace.’ It is made up of three elements. The first of these is a prefixial abstractor. The second is the stem for ‘beauty.’ The third is a suffix which indicates that the preceding elements are psychologically significant. The resultant word may be approximately defined as ‘the abstract quality of beauty of personality.’” (Source: Nida 1947, p. 223)
Other translations include (click or tap here to see more):
Inuktitut: “God’s kindness that enables us” (source: Andrew Atagotaaluk)
Nukna: “God gave his insides to one.” (“The ‘insides’ are the seat of emotion in Nukna, like the heart in the English language. To give your insides to someone is to feel love toward them, to want what is best for them, and to do good things for them.” (Source: Matt Taylor in The PNG Experience )
Uma: “(God’s) white insides” (source: Uma Back Translation)
the Germandas Buch translation by Roland Werner (publ. 2009-2022) uses a large variety of translations, including “undeserved friendliness,” “wonderful work of God,” “loving attention,” “generous,” but also “undeserved grace” (using the traditional German term Gnade)
In Latvian the term žēlastība is used both for “grace” and “mercy.” (Source: Katie Roth)
In the Contemporary Chichewa translation (2002/2016) and the Buku Lopatulika version (1922/2018) it is translated with chisomo. This word was earlier used to refer to a charm that people were using for others to like them. It meant that on his/her own, a person would not be qualified to be liked by people. But with this charm, people would look at that person more kindly. This is also used in a number of Old Testament passages for what is typically translated as “find favor” or “gracious” in English, including Exodus 33:12, Numbers 6:25, or Psalm 84:11. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
For Muna, René van den Berg explains the process how the translation team arrived at a satisfactory solution: “Initial translation drafts in Muna tended to (…) use the single word kadawu ‘part, (given) share, gift,’ but this word is really too generic. It lacks the meaning component of mercy and kindness and also seems to imply that the gift is part of a larger whole. Consequently we now [translate] according to context. In wishes and prayers such as ‘Grace to you and peace from God’ we translate ‘grace’ as kabarakati ‘blessing’ (e.g. Gal 1:3). In many places we use kataano lalo ‘goodness of heart’ (e.g. Gal 1:15 ‘because of the goodness of his heart God chose me’) as well as the loan rahamati ‘mercy’ (e.g. ‘you have-turned-your-backs-on the mercy of God’ for ‘you have fallen away from grace’; Gal 5:4). In one case where the unmerited nature of ‘grace’ is in focus, we have also employed katohai ‘a free gift’ (typically food offered to one’s neighbo-1urs) in the same verse. ‘The reason-you-have-been-saved is because of the goodness of God’s heart (Greek charis, Muna kataano lalo), going-through your belief in Kristus. That salvation is not the result of your own work, but really a free-gift (Greek dooron ‘gift’; Muna katohai) of God.’ (Eph 2:8).
In Burmese, it is translated with the Buddhist term kyeh’jooh’tau (ကျေးဇူးတော်). LaSeng Dingrin (in Missiology 37/4, 2009, p. 485ff.) explains: “As regards the Christian term ‘grace,’ Judson [the first translator of the Bible into Burmese] could not have brought the Burmese Buddhists the good news about the redeeming work of Jesus Christ and its benefits (i.e., forgiveness and salvation), without employing the Burmese Buddhist term kyeh’jooh’tau (‘grace’). Deriving from Palikataññuta (“gratefulness”), kyeh’jooh’tau denotes ‘good deeds for others or benefits,’ which occur among humans. (…) When Christianized, kyeh’jooh’tau also refers to the atoning work of Jesus and its benefits, and can occur between humans and God. The word kyeh’jooh’tau looks very Burmese Buddhist, but it is Christian, too, and conveys the core of the Christian proclamation. Furthermore, kyeh’jooh’tau itself shows that translatability of Christianity cannot be imagined without reliance on Buddhism.” (See also the Burmese entry for God)
In American Sign Language it is translated with a sign that combines “compassion” and “giving out.” (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“Grace” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
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. )
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.”
Martin Ehrensvärd, one of the translators for the DanishBibelen 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. )
Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the reader of the letter).
Source: SIL International Translation Department (1999).
Following are a number of back-translations of Romans 6:15:
Uma: “So, God says we are straight in his sight only because of his grace [white insides], not because of our following of his Law. But let’s not say/think like this: ‘If it is thus, we may commit sin.’ Don’t, relatives!” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Perhaps you (pl.) say, ‘Na, if it is like that, because God loves and pities us (incl.) and because the law has no longer authority over us (incl.) na, we (incl.) can continue to sin.’ But that is not true.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Some perhaps suppose mistakenly that since it is no longer necessary for us to observe the Law, and since God has shown His favor to us, that we can continue doing evil. But that cannot really be.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “What then does this mean to say? If our salvation is based on God’s grace, not our obeying the law, is it OK if we sin? It cannot-be!” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Now our souls are saved, but it is not that we do all that the law says, because it is wholly by the grace of God that he cleared our sins. So now, that our sins have been cleared, can it be said that we will continue to again commit sin? No, not that.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
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.)
Paul’s question, What, then?, reminds one of the question that he raised in verse 1, What shall we say, then? It is best to understand this, not as a rhetorical question, but as a question which he thinks might be asked by his opponents. Paul’s argument—that the Christian lives under God’s grace and therefore should not sin—could be reversed, and so he begins in this verse to protect himself against such an argument. Most commentators and translators assume that by the use of the word law in this verse Paul has reference to any command of God, and not merely to the Jewish Law. By no means translates the same expression that Paul used in Rom 6.2.
If the question and answer technique cannot be employed as a rhetorical device, it is generally possible to use a strong negation—for example, “we must not sin, for we are not under law but under God’s grace” or “since we are not under law but under God’s grace, we must therefore not sin.”
Under law may be rendered as “abide by law,” “are controlled by law,” or “are ruled by law.” The choice of a term for under law must in some measure be determined by the corresponding term, under God’s grace; this may be expressed in various ways—for example, “God’s grace controls us” or “God’s grace compels us.”
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 .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.