tetragrammaton, YHWH

The translation of the tetragrammaton (YHWH or יהוה‎) is easily the most often discussed issue in Bible translation. This is exemplified by the fact that there is virtually no translation of the Bible — regardless of language — where the position of the respective translator or translation team on how to translate the name of God into the respective language is not clearly stated in the preface or introduction.

Click or tap here to read about the different ways the tetragrammaton is and has been translated

The literature on this topic is overwhelming, both as far as the meaning of YHWH and the translation of it by itself and in combination with other terms (including Elohim and Adonai). There is no reason or room to rehash those discussions. Aside from various insightful translations of YHWH into various languages (see below), what’s of interest in the context of this tool are official and semi-official statements regarding the translation by Bible translation agencies and churches. These include the 1992 statement by United Bible Societies’ “Names of God” Study Group (see The Bible Translator 1992, p. 403-407 ) or the “Letter to the Bishops’ Conference on ‘The Name of God'” by the Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Discriplina Sacramentorum of 2008 (see here et al.).

In summary, the UBS study group gives six different options on how to translate YHWH: 1) transliterate (some form of “Yahweh” or “Jehovah” if this is an already established term); 2) translate (along the lines of kurios — κύριος in the Septuagint); 3) translate the meaning of YHWH; 4) use a culture-specific name; 5) translate Elohim and YHWH in the same way; or 6) use a combination of any of these options.

The official Catholic directive states that for liturgical purposes YHWH is to be translated as an equivalent of Kurios (“Lord”) unless when appearing in combination with Elohim (“God”) or Adonai (“lord”), in which case it’s to be translated with “God.”

In the following collection of examples, any of the above-mentioned strategies are used.

Use of Typographical Means to Offset the Name of God

A large number of Bible translations in many Western European languages have used a similar strategy to translate YHWH as an equivalent of Kurios or Adonai (“lord” in Greek in Hebrew) but have used either small caps or all caps to denote these occurrences as an equivalent to a proper name. Here are some examples:

  • English: Lord
  • Danish: Herren (In recent editions: Herren and Gud (“God”))
  • Swedish: Herren (traditionally: YHWH — Herren and Elohim — Herren)
  • French: SEIGNEUR (in the Traduction œcuménique de la Bible)
  • German: Herr or Herr (see also the translation by Buber/Rosenzweig below)
  • Dutch: HERE
  • Portuguese: Senhor
  • Welsh: ARGLWYDD
  • Spanish: Señor

None of the European languages have found a “cultural-linguistic equivalent” with the possible exception of Eternal or l’Éternel (see below).

The rendering of the translation of YHWH in bold (and uppercase) characters is for instance used in Guhu-Samane: QOBEROBA (a term of address for a respected person and also connotes “forever”) (for “forever”, see below under Translations of the Name of God) and the upper-casing in Bible translations in several other languages in Papua New Guinea:

In Cebuano (Ang Pulong sa Dios edition, 2010) and Hiligaynon (all versions), Ginoo, a typographical variant of Ginoo (“Lord”) is used. Bible translation consultant Kermit Titrud (SIL): “‘Yahweh’ is too close to Yahwa, their word for ‘Satan.’ We were afraid that in the pulpits readers might misread ‘Yahweh’ and say ‘Yahwa.’ So we went with the tradition found in most English translations. Ginoo for ‘Yahweh’ and Ginoo for ‘adonai.'”

In languages where capitalization is not a typographical option, other options are available and used, such as in Japanese, where the generic term shu 主 for “Lord” is bolded in some translations to offset its meaning (Source: Omanson, p. 17).

In Pattani Malay, the word for “Lord” is underlined: ربي. (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)

A graphical way of representation beyond typography was used by André Chouraqui in his French La Bible hebraique et le Nouveau Testament (publ. 1974-1977) for which he superimposed adonai and Elohim over (the French rendition) of the tetragrammaton:

(Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff.; see also tempt God / put God to the test)

Translations of the Name of God

A translation of YHWH with a rendering of the meaning of “Eternal” was done in English by James Moffatt (between 1926 and 1935) with Eternal, The Voice translation with Eternal One (2012), in French versions as L’ÉTERNEL by J. F. Ostervald in 1904 or l’Éternel by L. Segond (1910-1938, not in more recent revisions) and Zadoc Kahn (1964) (for the French translation, see also LORD of hosts), in Esperanto as “la Eternulo,” and in Obolo as Okumugwem: “The Ever-Living” (source: Enene Enene). In francophone Africa, translations of l’Éternel are widely used, due to the wide use of Segond’s early editions (see above). Examples include Nancere (Nandjéré) with Kumuekerteri, Ngambay (Ngambaï) with Njesigənea̰, Sar with Kɔ́ɔ̄ɓē, Mbay (Mbaï) with Bïraþe, Kim with Bage ɗiŋnedin, or Lélé uses Gojɛnɛkirɛkindiy (verbatim: “who remains for his eyes”). (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)

Similarly and at the same time expanding its meaning, the Nzima translation of 1998 translated YHWH as Ɛdεnkεma, the “Eternal All-Powerful Creator and Sustainer” (Source: David Ekem in The Bible Translator 2005, p. 72ff. ).

“Creator” is also used in Kazakh (Zharatkhan [Жаратқан]), Karakalpak (Zharatkhan [Жаратқан], sometimes in combination with Iyeg [Ийег] — “Master”), and Kirghiz (Zharatkhan [Жаратқан], likewise in combination with “Master” or Ege [Эге]). (Source: David Gray).

Nepali, Bengali, and Hindi are all derived from Sanskrit and have (eventually) all found similar translations of YHWH. In Bengali “God” is translated as Ishwar (ঈশ্বর) (widely used in Hindu scriptures, where it’s used as a title, usually associated with “Siva”) and YHWH as Shodaphrobhu (সদাপ্রভু) — “Eternal Lord”; in Nepali and Newari YHWH is translated as Paramaprabhu (परमप्रभु)– “Supreme Lord”; and Hindi translates YHWH as Phrabu (प्रभु) — “Lord.” In earlier translations all three languages used transliterations of Jehovah or Yahweh. (Source: B. Rai in The Bible Translator 1992, p. 443ff. and Barrick, p. 124).

  • The influential German Jewish translation of Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig (between 1925 and 1961) translates YHWH in Exodus 3:15 with “Ich bin da” (“I exist” or “I am”) and in all other instances with pronouns in small caps (Er, Ihm, Ihn, Ich — “he,” “him,” “his,” “I”).
  • The Jewish orthodox English ArtScroll Tanach translation (publ. 2011) uses Hashem or “The Name”
  • In the Bavarian translation by Sturmibund (publ. 1998), it is translated as Trechtein or “Sovereign, Lord.” “Trechtein” is related to the obsolete English “drighten.” (Source: Zetzsche)
  • In Ge’ez, Tigrinya, and Amharic it is translated with Igziabeher (እግዚአብሔር) or “Ruler/Lord of the Nations/Peoples.” In Ge’ez Igziabeher is used for “God” as well, whereas in Tigrinya and Amharic it is often, but not always used for “God.” In a recent revision by Biblica (see here ), an attempt was made to use Igziabeher exclusively for occurrences of the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Bible, but after strong responses by the Christian community, a compromise was found by using Igziabeher in the first chapter of Genesis and changing it according to the Hebrew text elsewhere. (Source: Zetseat Fekadu)
  • Akan uses “Forever-Owner” (Source: Jacob Loewen, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 401ff. ).
  • Warlpiri uses Kaatu Jukurrarnu (Kaatu is a transcription of “God” and Jukurrarnu means “timelessness” and shares a root with jukurrpa — dreamings) (Source: Stephen Swartz, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. ).
  • The translation of YHWH into Weri with Aniak Tupup or “man of the holy house” intends “to maintain the Jewish practice of not uttering God’s name [with] the use of another vernacular phrase that signals that a ‘taboo’ name is being referred [which] could give a cue that would be recognizable in written or oral communication” (Source: P. King, The Bible Translator 2014, p. 195ff. ).
  • Aruamu translates it as Ikiavɨra Itir God or “Ever Present God” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Idakho-Isukha-Tiriki: Nyasaye Wuvunyali Muno or “God powerful great” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
  • Ruund uses Chinawej, a term that is otherwise used as a response of approval. Anna Lerbak (in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 84ff. ) tells the genesis of this term (click or tap to see an explanation):

    “The name ‘Jehovah’ had been used in some contexts, but I had the feeling that it did not mean much to the people, and when I asked the pastors they all said it didn’t, and worse, it very often confused people, especially in the villages. During the conversation it was suggested that the name Chinawej be used in the place of ‘Jehovah’, and this met with immediate approval. A few days later I was working on a Psalm in which ‘Jehovah’ was used frequently, so I wrote Chinawej in its place and then read the Psalm to them. The response was about like this: “That is it, now people will understand, that is how Chinawej is. The Jews call God ‘Jehovah’, we call Him Chinawej, it is the same God. but we know Him as Chinawej as the Jews know Him as ‘Jehovah’ “. They often call God Chinawej in prayer, it seems to indicate warmth and intimacy.

    The same word is used in two other ways. It is the name of a snake which never attacks human beings. And it is used as a response of approval. When told of something they are pleased to hear, something they find good, just, helpful, generous, they often respond by saying, Chinawej. When they call God Chinawej, it indicates that they think of Him as One Who is good and just and generous towards them. When it was suggested at the committee that we use Chinawej in place of ‘Jehovah’ it was accepted immediately and unanimously.

  • Ebira has Eneyimavara. Eneyimavara was created by merging a praise phrase that was only used for the traditional deity Ohomorihi (see here), that had become the word for the Christian God: ene e yi ma vara or “the one that never changes.” “The translators came to the agreement that this praise name that describes the unchangeableness of God is very close in meaning to the probable meaning of YHWH.” (Source: David O Moomo in Scriptura 88 (2005), p. 151ff. )
  • The Uzbek Bible uses the term Ega (Эга) — “master, owner” in various forms (including Egam / Эгам for “my Owner” or Egamiz / Эгамиз for “our Owner.” (Click or tap to see an explanation):

    Jim Zvara (2019, p. 6) explains: “The Uzbek term ega means owner or master (‘master,’ in the historical context of an owner-slave relationship). By extension, it is natural for an Uzbek to speak to or refer to God as Egam (‘my owner’/’master’). In the Uzbek context to be God’s slave is a positive way of understanding one’s relation to him. It suggests that one is in a dependent and obedient relationship to God. The team felt that this relational connection and what it implies fits well with the concept of YHWH as the God who is in a covenant relationship with his people. In the Uzbek context, the choice of Ega was deemed to be the best balance of natural language with meaningful translation.”

  • The Seediq Bible translation team chose Utux Tmninun (“the weaving god”) for their translation of YHWH. (Click or tap to see a retelling of the process of how that decision was reached):

    “(…) The Seediq team requested that we spend time with them on key terms. They had compiled a list of key terms that they wanted input on, and we went through the list item by item. The most important item was how to deal with the divine name. They had tentatively translated it as Yehoba, transliterated from Jehovah, but they were also aware that this transliteration may not be accurate, and they were keen to explore other options.

    “We explored various alternatives. Were they interested in following the ancient Jewish practice of substituting ‘Lord’ for the divine name? Would capitalising the letters help? Would they be bold enough to use ‘Yahweh,’ following the opinion of most Old Testament scholars who regard this as the correct pronunciation? Was it feasible to adopt a mixed approach in dealing with the divine name (…)? Each option had its advantages as well as disadvantages.

    “In the midst of the discussion, a participant said, ‘Our ancestors, as well as we today, always call God by the term Utux Tmninun. I suggest we use this term.’ The term Utux Tmninun in the Seediq culture means ‘the weaving God.’ In their culture, God is the weaver, the one who weaves life together. All the participants were excited about this proposal. They tried this term with all the composite terms that involve the divine name, and it seemed to work well, so they decided tentatively to adopt this term. After the workshop, the participants went back to their villages and sought feedback from the wider community, and eventually they confirmed the use of the term Utux Tmninun as the rendering of the divine name.

    Translating the divine name as Utux Tmninun, the weaving God, is a creative solution. This term is viewed very positively in the Seediq community. It also correlates well with the concept of God as the creator (Gen. 1-2) and as the weaver who formed our inward parts and knit us together in our mothers’ wombs (Ps. 139:13). It also has the advantage of portraying God beyond the traditional masculine form.

    “Some may argue that since names are usually transliterated, we should do the same with YHWH, most likely pronounced ‘Yahweh.’ Unfortunately, due to the influence of Chinese Union Version for almost one hundred years now, Chinese Christians only know God as Yehehua. Attempts to change the term Yehehua to Yahweh have not been successful. This is a reality that the Seediq Christians have to live with.

    “Others may argue on theological grounds that YHWH is not only the creator, but also the God of the covenant, hence any attempt to substitute another term for YHWH will not do justice to the Hebrew text. In the case of the Seediq translation, there are significant similarities between Utux Tmninun and YHWH, though the terms are not identical. This is a reality translators often have to struggle with. Exact correspondence is hard to come by. Often it is a matter of approximation, give and take. Besides theological considerations, one has to deal with the constraints of past traditions (‘Jehovah,’ in this instance), the biblical cultures and one’s own culture, and audience acceptance. Hopefully, by using Utux Tmninun for YHWH, the Seediq term will be transformed and take on the aspect of the covenant God as well.” (Source: Yu Suee Yan, The Bible Translator 2015, p. 316ff. )

  • In Tok Pisin it is translated as Bikpela: “the Big One” or “the Great One.” (See: Norm Mundhenk in The Bible Translator 1985, p. 442ff. See also under LORD God / Lord God)
  • In Elhomwe it is translated as Apwiya, which also means “uncle” or “master” (source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Amele uses Tibud, the term for an important nature god, e.g., Amel tibud “lightning god,” Mim tibud “earthquake god.” (Source: John Roberts)
  • Silimo has ’gain Onuk Logo a’ge or “the Chief who is above all others” (source: Buzz and Myrna Maxey )
  • Nyankore: Nyakubaho or “the one who is from within itself” (source: Bühlmann 1950, p. 146)
  • ‘One local dialect of Carpathian Romani: Drágon Dél or “Beloved/Dear God.” In most Romani dialects, the word Rai (Lord/Boss/landlord/shopkeeper) is sort-of acceptable, but in one particular subgroup of Carpathian Romani they said it only meant shopkeeper and ‘everyone knows that [majority term for YHWH] means God, and why can’t we translate it that way?’ We tried to explain, but they weren’t keen on anything but Dél (‘God’). We eventually compromised with Drágon Dél, a common expression for YHWH, and Dél for Elohim, but it took quite a lot of convincing them that there was any theological point there.
  • For the interconessional translation into Chichewa (publ. 1999) the term Chauta (“Great-One-of-the-Bow”) was chosen for YHWH (Click or tap to see the detailed story):

    “The name Chauta, literally ‘Great-One-of-the-Bow’, i.e. [is] either the rainbow (descriptively termed uta-wa-Leza ‘the-bow-of-God’) or, less likely, the hunter’s bow. And yet Chauta was also distinct from Mulungu [“God”] in that it has reference to the specific tribal deity of the Chewa people — the God who ‘owns’ yet also ‘belongs to’ them — and hence it carries additional positive emotive overtones. Although research indicated that in an ancient traditional setting, Chauta too was probably associated with the indigenous ancestral rain cult, in the Christian era it has been progressively generalized to encompass virtually all religious contexts in which God may be either appealed to, proclaimed, or praised. After prolonged deliberation, therefore, the translation committee determined Chauta to be the closest functional equivalent to YHWH of the Hebrew Scriptures. The choice of this name is not without its difficulties, however, and these were carefully considered by the Chewa committee. For example, the use of a more specific local term, as opposed to the generic Mulungu, carries a greater likelihood of bringing along with it certain senses, connotations, and situations that were (and no doubt still are) associated with the indigenous, pre-Christian system of worship. If these happened to remain strong in any contemporary sacred setting, then of course the dangers connected with conceptual syncretism might well arise. In the case of Chauta, however, it appeared that the process of positive Christian contextualization had already reached an advanced stage, that is, judging from the widespread use of this name in all aspects of religious life and practice. A more scholarly argument against Chauta takes the position that there is too great a female component associated with this term because it was traditionally applied (by figurative metonymy) to refer also to the ritual ‘wife of God’, i.e. the chief officiant at a traditional rain shrine and worship sanctuary. However, this usage seems to be quite remote, and most people questioned do not even recognize the connection anymore. Besides, in a matrilineal society such as the Chewa, it does not seem inappropriate to have this aspect of meaning lying in the background, particularly since it is not completely foreign to the notion of God in the Bible (cf. Ps. 36:7; 73:15; Isa. 49:14-15; Mt. 23:37). In terms of ‘connotative fit’ or emotive identification and appeal, there can be little doubt that the name Chauta is by far the closest natural equivalent to YHWH in the contemporary Chewa cultural and religious environment. This aspect of meaning was probably also utmost from the ancient Jewish perspective as well; in other words, “for them the associated meaning of this special name [YHWH], in terms of their history and culture, far outweighed any meaning it may have suggested because of its form or derivation”. To be sure, this ‘new’ divine name — that is, new as far as the Scriptures are concerned — may take some getting used to, especially in the formal setting of public worship. But this is not a foreign god whom we are talking about; rather, he is certainly by now regarded as the national deity of the Chewa nation. Chauta is the great God who for one reason or another ‘did not make himself known to them by his holy name, the LORD’ (Exod. 6:3), that is, in the prior translations of his Word into Chewa. He is, however, and always has been “a God who saves … the LORD (Chauta), our Lord, who rescues us from death” (Ps. 68:20, Good News Bible)!” (Source: Wendland 1998, 120f.; see also The Bible Translator 1992, 430ff. )

Transliteration of YHWH

A 12th century reading of the Masoretic vowel points around יהוה‎ (יְהֹוָה) was interpreted to be pronounced as Yehowah from which Iehouah and Jehovah were derived. This was reflected in the English versions of Tyndale (publ. 1530) and the Geneva Bible (significantly based on Tyndale and publ. in 1560) and again the King James Version (Authorized Version) (publ. 1611) which all used Iehouah or Jehovah in 7 different verses in the Old Testament. The translators and editors of the American Standard Version (publ. 1901), a review of the King James Version used Jehovah for all appearances of the tetragrammaton something that the Spanish Reina-Valera (publ. 1602) had already done as well.

In English versions, Yahweh as a transliteration of the tetragrammaton is used by the Catholic Jerusalem Bible (publ. 1966), the Protestant Holman Christian Standard Bible (publ. 2004) and the Legacy Standard Bible (publ. 2021). The Catholic translation by Knox (publ. 1949) occasionally uses Javé, “to make it a Latin name, to match all the other names in the Old Testament.” (Source Knox 1949, p. 80)

Mandinka for instance uses Yawe for YHWH. “The use of Yawe for YHWH is good and may be a trendsetter in this part of Africa.” (Source: Rob Koops)

In a group of related languages in another part of Africa an interesting development from a transliteration to a indigenous translation can be shown: In the Nandi Bible (1938) Jehovah was used as a translation for YHWH. Kamuktaindet (“The Powerful One”) was used as a translation for Elohim (“God”). This was taken over by a translation into the macrolanguage Kalenjin (1969) (intended to include the closely related Keiyo, Kipsigis, Markweeta, Nandi, Okiek, Sabaot, Terik, and Tugen). Sabaot, Markweeta, Tugen and Okiek later wanted there own translations. Both Sabaot and Markweeta use the indigenous word for “Creator” (Yēyiin in Sabaot and Iriin in Markweeta) to translate Elohim and YHWH of the Old Testament and Theos of the New Testament. The Kalenjin Bible has recently been revised to cater to Keiyo, Kipsigis, Nandi and Terik, and this revision has completely dropped Jehovah in favour of Kamuktaindet. (Source: Iver Larsen)

Early translations into Gilbertese faced a problem when transliterating “Jehovah” (a form of “Jehovah” was first used in Spanish Bible translations in 1569 and 1602): “There are only thirteen letters in the Kiribati alphabet: A, E, I, O, U, M, N, NG, B, K, R, T (pronounced [s] when followed by ‘i’), W For instance, ‘Jehovah’ is rendered Iehova, but Kiribati speakers can only pronounce it as ‘Iowa,’ since the phonemes [h] and [v] do not exist in Kiribati.” (source: Joseph Hong, The Bible Translator 1994, p. 329ff. .)

Other transliterations include Yoba (Kovai), Iaue (Mussau-Emira), Jawe (Waskia), Iave (Maiadomu), Iawe (Waboda) (source: P. King, The Bible Translator 2014, p. 194ff. ), Yawi (Western Tawbuid, Eastern Tawbuid), or Yihowah (Kapingamarangi — this last example was chosen because it contains the characters YHWH and distinguishes itself from the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Jiowa, also if the name is not specifically in focus, the Kapingamarangi translators use Dimaadua or “The Parents” as an honorary title and a translation of YHWH [source: Nico Damms in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 179ff. ]).

In a recent edition of a Thai translation (Thai Standard Version, publ. 2011) a combination of translation and transliteration is used: phra’ ya(h)we (h) (พระยาห์เวห์) (“Divine Yawe”). (Source: Stephen Pattemore)

In Nyarafolo Senoufo the transliteration is Yewe which also means “the being one” or “he that is.” David DeGraaf (in: Notes on Translation 3/1999, p. 34ff.) explains: “Since it is widely recognized that the vowels of the name are uncertain, another possible transliteration is Yewe. This proposal is in accord with the Nyarafolo rules of vowel harmony and is thus open to being understood as a normal nominalization in the language. Second, Yewe is exactly the word that would be formed by nominalizing the verb ‘to be’ in the class that includes sentient beings. Thus, Yewe can be understood as ‘the being one’ or ‘he that is’. This solution accords well with YHWH’s self-revelation to Moses in Exodus 3:14, ‘I am who I am.'”

In the Literary and Mandarin Chinese (Protestant) tradition the transliteration of “Jehovah” is historically deeply rooted, even though there are also some historical burdens (Click or tap to see more details):

“YHWH” is rendered in the Chinese Union Version — the most widely used Bible translation in China—as well as most other Chinese Bible translations as yehehua 耶和華. According to Chinese naming conventions, yehehua could be interpreted as Ye Hehua, in which Ye would be the family name and Hehua — “harmonic and radiant” — the given name. In the same manner, Ye would be the family name of Jesus (transliterated as yesu 耶穌) and Su would be the given name. Because in China the children inherit the family name from the father, the sonship of Jesus to God the Father, yehehua, would be illustrated through this. Though this line of argumentation sounds theologically unsound, it is indeed used effectively in the Chinese church.” (see Wright 1953, p. 298, see also Jesus).

“Ye 耶, an interrogative particle in classical Chinese, is part of the same phonetic series as ye 爺, which gives it a certain exchangeability. Ye 爺 carries the meaning “father” or is used as an honorable form of address. The choice of the first Bible translators to use the transliteration yehehua 爺火華 for Jehovah had a remarkable and sobering influence on the history of the 19th century in China by possibly helping to shape the fatal Taiping ideology, a rebellion that ended up costing an estimated 20 million lives.

“The founder of the Taiping rebellion, Hong Xiuquan, was given a tract (…) [that he used to] interpret a nervous breakdown he had had in 1837 as his “call” to be the “Messiah.” This “vision” that Hong experienced is likely to have had a direct correlation with the name of “God” in that tract. Shen yehuohua 神爺火華 (directly translated: ‘God (or: spirit); old man (or: father); fire; bright)” was the term that was used in that tract for ‘God Jehovah,’ but this was not indicated as a (in its second part) transliteration of a proper name. In his vision, Hong saw ‘a man venerable in years (corresponding with ye), with golden (corresponding with huo and hua) beard and dressed in a black robe,’ an image likely to have been inspired by a direct translation from that name for ‘God,’ especially as it appeared at the beginning of the tract. That this term was considered to be a term of some relevance to the Taiping ideology is demonstrated by the fact that both yehuohua 爺火華 as the personal name of God and ye 爺 as “God the Father” later appeared in Taiping writings.” (Source: Zetzsche in Malek 2002, p. 141ff.)

In American Sign Language it is translated with a sign that combines the letter Y and a sign that points up and is similar to the sign for “God.” (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)


“YHWH” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor

In British Sign Language is is translated with a sign that combines the signs for “God” and “name” and the finger-spelling of Y-H-W-H. (Source: Anna Smith)


“YHWH” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)

Japanese Sign Language combines the sign for “Lord” with “exist” to make a name sign that technically means “the existent one,” but is close enough to “Lord” that it isn’t too jarring for people in the church who expect to see “Lord” in certain contexts (source: Mark Penner). For a Japanese Sign Language explanation, see here.


“YHWH” in Japanese Sign Language, source: 日本手話訳聖書を

For further reading on the translation of YHWH, see Rosin 1956, p. 89-125 and Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff.

See also Lord, God, and Exod. 3:14-15.

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:20: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

Naomi’s statement that God (Yahweh) cares for both “the living and the dead” corresponds to the Bantu world view, not so much due to the agency of God as mentioned, but because the dead are seemingly put on an equal plane with the living—they comprise but one social community.

It is difficult to render the Hebrew term go’el adequately in Chichewa/Chitonga due to the cultural differences involved. In general, the function of this person in society was to protect the interests of the family and clan: their land, property, freedom, and posterity. Thus he had the obligation to “redeem” (through personal purchase) what had been lost, to avenge the death of kinsmen, and should he happen to be the closest relative to a deceased male of child-bearing age, to marry the widow. The problem is that, not unexpectedly, there is no single term which would cover all of these functions in any Central African language. There would be a “clan representative” (Chichewa: nkhoswe), usually the senior woman’s eldest brother, who does conduct negotiations with his counterparts in matters such as marriage and legal disputes (customary law). But he would never personally be responsible for carrying out acts of revenge or to act as husband in a levirate marriage (not as nkhoswe, that is). The best, then, that can be done in translation is to employ a descriptive phrase which focuses upon the most relevant components of the term’s meaning in this particular context; e.g., Chichewa: “(he is) one of our relatives, the one who has the responsibility of nourishing us” (or: bringing us up, i.e., caring for us).

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 176f.

complete verse (Ruth 2:18 - 2:20)

Following are a number of back-translations of Ruth 2:18-20:

  • Noongar: “Ruth took the wheat to her house, and Naomi saw what she had gathered. Then Ruth gave her mother-in- law the bread she had not eaten herself. Her mother-in-law asked her, ‘Where did you gather wheat? Where did you work today? May God bless the man who saw you.’ So Ruth told her mother-in-law everything about the man and his wheatfield. Ruth said, ‘This man is called Boaz.’ Naomi said to her daughter, ‘May God bless this man. He has not stopped being merciful to people living and dead.’ Naomi then told Ruth, ‘This man is our relative, our right-way man.’” (Source: Bardip Ruth-Ang 2020)
  • Eastern Bru: “Then he brought the grain back to the town. She brought to her mother-in-law the grain she had gleaned. And Ruth brought out the leftover food that she had kept back and gave that to her mother-in-law.Her mother-in-law asked her: ‘Today where did you glean this? Whose field did you glean in? I ask God to give blessing to the one who helped you.’ After that Ruth told her mother-in-law: ‘That man who allowed me to glean in his field today was named Boaz.’Then Naommi said to her daughter-in-law: ‘May God give him blessings. Surely God has not given up doing good to those still living and to those still living and to those who have died.” And Naomi said: ‘Surely this person is from our clan also very near to us.’” (Source: Bru Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “She brought these/it back-home to town and showed-(it) to her mother-in-law Noemi. Then she took-out her leftover food and gave (it) to Noemi. Noemi asked her, ‘Where did you(sg) glean some heads-of-grain earlier? Whose field? Blessed is the man who treated you(sg) well.’ Ruth told Noemi that she gleaned there in the field of a man whose name was Boaz. Noemi said to Ruth, ‘May the LORD bless Boaz. He continued to show his kindness to the people who are still alive and to the dead-ones already.’ And she also said, ‘That Boaz is our(incl) close relative; he is one (of those) who has (a) responsibility to-take-care of us(incl).’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “She carried it back to town, and showed to her mother-in-law how much she had gathered. Ruth also showed to her the grain that was left over after she had eaten enough from what Boaz had given her at lunchtime. Her mother-in-law asked her, ‘Where did you gather grain today? In whose field did you work? God will surely bless the man who was kind to you.’ Then Ruth told her about the man in whose field she had been working. She said, ‘The name of the man who owns the field where I worked today is Boaz.’ Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, ‘I hope/desire that Yahweh will bless him! He has not stopped acting kindly toward us, who are still living, and to our husbands who have died.’ Then she added, ‘That man is a close relative of Elimelech; he is one of those who has a responsibility to help those who are his relatives.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

3rd person pronoun with high register (Japanese)

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 choice of a third person singular and plural pronoun (“he,” “she,” “it” and their various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. While it’s not uncommon to avoid pronouns altogether in Japanese, there are is a range of third person pronouns that can be used. In these verses a number of them are used that pay particularly much respect to the referred person (or, in fact, God, as in Exodus 15:2), including kono kata (この方), sono kata (その方), and ano kata (あの方), meaning “this person,” “that person,” and “that person over there.”

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

See also third person pronoun with exalted register.

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:20

The verb translated exclaimed (literally “said”) introduces an emphatic statement and in some languages may be appropriately translated as TEV has done (see also New American Bible) or, as in some languages, “Naomi said strongly to her.”

May the LORD bless Boaz involves a Hebrew construction which is literally “blessed be he with reference to the LORD”, but the preposition refers clearly to the LORD as the author of the action. See Joüon, par. 132-133; Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax, par. 107. Such a passive expression, however, is extremely difficult in many languages, and therefore one must use an active form; for example, “May the LORD, who always keeps his promises to the living and the dead, bless him.” In other instances it may be necessary to introduce this expression by a verb marking direct discourse; for example, “I pray that the LORD may bless….”

The relative pronoun in the Hebrew, “who,” can be related to the grammatical subject of the preceding verb, that is “he” = “Boaz,” or to the complement of the agent, “the LORD.” The majority of commentators and translators choose the second interpretation (“the LORD”), but a significant minority present solid arguments for the first interpretation (“Boaz”). Both are acceptable; what is important for the translator is to leave no ambiguity in the receptor language. We suggest that the translator give one interpretation in the text and the other as a variant in a footnote (a variant suggested for Good News Translation is “May he be blessed by the LORD, … for he has always kept his promises…”). In the Septuagint the relative clause may refer back to Boaz or to the LORD. One manuscript de Rossi and the Syriac and Old Latin versions read: “Blessed be the Lord.” Very probably the rare meaning of the preposition le was no longer understood, or both of the existing formulae “Blessed be he by the LORD” and “Blessed be the LORD” were confused. For further reference, see Rebera, “Yahweh or Boaz? Ruth 2.20 reconsidered,” The Bible Translator 36 (1985):317-327.

The term translated promises is rendered in some translations as “kindness” (Revised Standard Version) and in others as “mercy” (cf. New American Bible). The focus here, however, is upon “loyalty” (cf. New English Bible “keep faith with”). One may translate: “The LORD is always loyal to the living and to the dead” or “The LORD continues to be loyal to those who are living and to those who have died.” In many languages, however, the expression of keeps his promises is a very effective rendering, since this clearly specifies the way in which God continues to be loyal. Keeps his promises may be rendered as “does what he has promised he will do,” “helps them even as he said he would help them,” or “is good to them just as he said he would always be good to them.”

And she went on may be translated as “And she also said to Ruth” or “And in addition she said.”

In some languages That man must be rendered as “Boaz,” since it is a specific reference, and therefore the proper name (which has already been mentioned in verse 19) must be employed.

A close relative of ours is rendered in a number of different ways in different receptor languages; for example, “this man is one of our brothers,” “this man belongs to our clan,” “this man is like one of our family,” or “this man is one of our large family” (in which “large family” is a reference to the extended family in contrast with the immediate family).

The Hebrew term translated one of those responsible for taking care of us is a highly technical one which could be literally translated as “one of our redeemers” or “one of those who has the right of redemption over us.” Hebrew has a plural suffixed form of the participle. See H. Bauer and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache, 1922, par. 252. Such a person was a relative who was obliged to protect the interests of the family and clan. This involved the individual’s freedom, his goods, and his posterity. One of the duties of such a “redeemer” was to produce an heir to one who had died. Another obligation involved buying property that was in danger of being lost to the family by being sold outside the family group. As is clear in chapter 4, both of these duties play an important role in the story of Ruth, and the same term occurs in 3.9-12 and 4.1, 3, 6, 8, 14. Various aspects of the duties involved will be pointed out in the comments on these verses. For more recent literature we refer especially to J. J. Stamm, Erlösen und Vergeben im Alten Testament, 1940, pages 27 ff.; A. R. Johnson, “The primary meaning of gaʾal,” V. T. Suppl. I (1953), pages 67 ff.; and A. Jepsen, “Die Begriffe des Erlösens im Alten Testament” (in Festgabe für Rudolf Hermann z. 70. Geburtstag: “So lange es ‘huete’ heißt”), 1957, pages 153-163.

In most receptor languages it is necessary to employ some type of descriptive phrase which will identify not only the relationship of a person to a particular family or clan, but also something of his obligations. Accordingly, Good News Translation employs the translation a close relative of ours, one of those responsible for taking care of us. An equivalent descriptive phrase might also be “he is one of those who can help us as a relative” or “he is one of those who can provide for us as one does for members of a family.” Where levirate marriage is well known in a society and where there are other similar responsibilities and obligations involved, one may even employ a translation such as “he is one of those who can take us as widows.” Such an expression could be classified as a fully dynamic equivalent and one which would be in keeping with this context.

In some languages, however, it is not easy to speak of “responsibility.” One of those responsible for taking care of us may need to be rendered as “one of those who must take care of us,” “one of those who our customs say must take care of us,” or “one who must take care of us because he is related to us.”

Quoted with permission from de Waard, Jan and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Ruth. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1992. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

SIL Translator’s Notes on Ruth 2:20

2:20a

May he be blessed by the LORD: Naomi again asked the LORD to bless Boaz.

2:20b

who has not withdrawn His kindness from the living or the dead: The Hebrew verb that the Berean Standard Bible translates as withdrawn His kindness is more literally “forsaken, abandoned.”

There are two interpretation issues in this clause. The first is whether His kindness is the object or the subject of the Hebrew clause. The possibilities are:

(1) His kindness is the object of the verb. According to this interpretation, “he” is the subject of the verb, and kindness is something that “he” has not abandoned or forsaken. For example:

he has not abandoned his loyalty to the living or to the dead (NET Bible)

(2) His kindness is the subject of the verb. According to this interpretation, God’s kindness has not abandoned or forsaken his people. For example:

whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead (New Revised Standard Version)

It is recommended that you follow interpretation (1).

The second issue is that in Hebrew it is not clear who has not withdrawn His kindness. Scholars have interpreted the clause in two ways:

(1) The LORD is the subject of the verb. For example:

May he be blessed by the Lord, who never fails to show kindness to the living and to the dead. (New American Bible, Revised Edition)

(2) Boaz is the subject of the verb. For example:

May he be rewarded by the Lord because he has shown loyalty to the living on behalf of the dead. (NET Bible)

It is recommended that you follow interpretation (1) along with the majority of English versions.

who has not withdrawn His kindness: The verb that the Berean Standard Bible translates as withdrawn is more literally “abandoned” or “forsaken.” Naomi was saying that the LORD was still being kind and faithful to her family. The LORD was showing his kindness through Boaz.

In some languages, it may be more natural to say:

He has not stopped being kind
-or-
He has not stopped acting kindly
-or-
He has continued to act with kindness/faithfulness

His kindness: The Hebrew word ḥesed that the Berean Standard Bible translates as kindness means faithfulness, love, and loyalty. See also the note at 1:8d.

from the living: The phrase the living here refers to Naomi and Ruth. The LORD had been kind to them by guiding Ruth to the field of a relative who was generous to her.

or the dead: The phrase the dead here probably refers to Elimelech and his sons. Perhaps Naomi was already thinking that Boaz might act as a guardian-redeemer, marry Ruth, and so continue Elimelech’s family line. This would be considered a great kindness to Elimelech and his sons, who had all died.

2:20c

Naomi continued: The phrase Naomi continued indicates that Naomi continued speaking to Ruth. She started to talk about Boaz directly. Use the words that are normal in your language to indicate that the speaker continued to speak but changed the topic slightly.

The man is a close relative: Naomi referred to Boaz as The man. In some languages, it might not be polite to refer to a wealthy relative as The man. You should translate this with words that indicate respect.

Here are some other ways to translate this:

Boaz is a close relative (Contemporary English Version)
-or-
That gentleman/landowner is a close relative

a close relative: The Hebrew phrase that the Berean Standard Bible translates as a close relative is literally “close/near to us.” It is clear from the context that Naomi was talking of kinship and family ties. Naomi refers to him as a close relative even though Boaz was a relative of her deceased husband. In some languages, it may be necessary to say “a close relative of our family/husbands.”

2:20d

He is one of our kinsman-redeemers: In Israel, close relatives had a responsibility to preserve the property and family name of those related to them. The closest relatives—a brother, uncle, or cousin—had the main responsibility. These closest relatives were called kinsman-redeemers. By using this special term, Naomi was saying that Boaz was one of the men who had a close enough family relationship to help both her and Ruth.

In some languages, a term such as “guardian/kinsman-redeemer” may be misunderstood, because most people will associate it with Christ’s role as the redeemer of sinners.

In some languages, it may be necessary to translate kinsman-redeemers with a phrase that clarifies the meaning in the context of this book. For example:

one of those who is supposed to look after us (Contemporary English Version)
-or-
one who should take care of us (New Century Version)
-or-
one of those responsible for taking care of us (Good News Translation)
-or-
one of those who have responsibility to care for our family
-or-
a relative with the duty to help us

It is suggested that you use one or more of the above examples where the phrase kinsman-redeemer occurs in the source line. In this verse part, Naomi is speaking to Ruth, so the inclusive pronoun “us” is used. In other contexts, such as where Ruth speaks to Boaz, the exclusive pronoun should be used.

© 2024 by SIL International®
Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.
All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible.
BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.