Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία; μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔγνων εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου· τήν τε γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ᾔδειν εἰ μὴ ὁ νόμος ἔλεγεν, " Οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις."
The Law and Sin
7What then are we to say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
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. Instead, the translators combined the two opening questions (“What then should we say? That the law is sin?” in English) in the translation to read “Is it possible for us to say (then) that the Law is evil?” (Source: Glyn Griffiths in Notes on Translation June 1986, p. 25ff.)
See also here and rhetorical questions in Romans 8:31-35.
The Hebrew and Greek that is typically translated as “covet” in English is translated as “bulge your eyes over what is someone else’s” in Isthmus Zapotec. (Source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
In Bura-Pabir it is translated with ngguka or “have strong desire for” which differentiates from silka or “jealous,” which refers not to one’s jealous attitude to one’s neighbor. (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
See also greed / covetousness.
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 writer of the letter and the readers).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
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.”
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.
Following are a number of back-translations of Romans 7:7:
For the Old Testament quote, see Exodus 20:17 and Deuterononmy 5:21.
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 shall we say, then?, indicates the beginning of a new section in which he once again uses the style of a philosophical argument (see 2.1).
In some languages the equivalent of the two initial questions would be “some people may argue, The Law itself is sinful” or “some people might insist that the Law itself is bad.”
Of course not reflects a typical Pauline formula by which he rejects a statement as being not true; elsewhere in Romans it has been rendered as certainly not and by no means (see 3.4, 6, 31; 6.2, 15; it will also appear in 7.13; 9.14; 11.1, 11). An appropriate rendering in some languages may be “but of course this is not true” or “certainly the Law is not bad.”
Once again throughout this passage Paul uses the term Law primarily in the sense of the Jewish Law, though he would probably intend a wider application and so to include any command that comes from God in any form whatsoever.
Know is used, not in the sense of theoretical knowledge, but to indicate a concrete experience. It will be helpful to expand this statement further. All men are selfish and inwardly rebellious against God. However, sin cannot be brought to light in such a way that it can be seen and measured apart from its rejection of a specific commandment of God. This is what Paul means by “knowing sin”; he rejected God’s command and so became conscious of himself as a sinful being. He uses the specific example of the tenth commandment to illustrate what he means. He would never have known what it is to covet if the Law had not said, “Do not covet.”
The word translated covet means literally “desire” and is sometimes used in the New Testament in a good sense (see Luke 22.15), but generally it is found with evil connotations. Paul is here following a rather typical Jewish viewpoint, which speaks of the three stages of desire, sin, and death (cf. James 1.15). Of course, this concept has its roots in Genesis 3.
Although Paul uses two different tenses for the verb know in this verse (the first an aorist, and the second a pluperfect with the meaning of an imperfect), it is doubtful if any special difference in meaning is to be understood. In fact, the verbs themselves come from different roots, but they are used synonymously here.
The particular significance of know in this context may be expressed in some languages as “really know.” In most languages it is better to use an expression meaning “to experience.” In certain languages, however, the concept of knowing may be expressed as “feeling” or “know by doing.”
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 .
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.