The Greek that is translated as “propitiation” or “atoning sacrifice” in English is translated in South Bolivian Quechua as “putting out [as in putting out a fire] on account of our sins” (source: T.E. Hudspith in The Bible Translator 1952, p. 66ff. ).
In Chichewa, it is translated as nsembe yopepsera machimo athu or “a sacrifice for saying sorry for our sins” (interconfessional translation, publ. 1999) and in Chitonga as cipaizyo cakumanya mulandu or “the sacrifice for putting an end to the case/offense [of our sins].” (Source: Wendland 1998, p. 91)
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 addressee).
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.” Likewise, many translations contain the “connotation of moral responsibility.” Loma has (for certain types of sin) “leaving the road” (which “implies a definite standard, the transgression of which is sin”) or Navajo uses “that which is off to the side.” (Source: Bratcher / Nida). In Toraja-Sa’dan the translation is kasalan, which originally meant “transgression of a religious or moral rule” and has shifted its meaning in the context of the Bible to “transgression of God’s commandments.” (Source: H. van der Veen in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 21ff. ).
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 Kaingang, the translation is “break God’s word” and in Sandawe the original meaning of the Greek term (see above) is perfectly reflected with “miss the mark.” (Source: Ursula Wiesemann in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 36ff., 43)
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. )
Following are a number of back-translations of 1 John 2:2:
Uma: “And he is the one who died to become our redeemer / body substitute so that God [could] forgive our sins. And not only our sins alone did he redeem, but the sins of all mankind also.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “And Isa Almasi was made a sacrifice hep to make our (dual) sins be passed. And not just our (incl.) sins but up to/including the sin of all mankind was taken away/made past by Isa Almasi.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “He is the one who was sacrificed because of us (incl.) so that our sins might be removed. And it’s not just our sins which can be removed, but rather the sins also of the whole of mankind.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “And it is Cristo just the same who underwent/bore the punishment of our sins so that they can be forgiven, and not our sins only but rather the sins of all people.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Because as for this Jesus, he was made a sacrifice, so that he could-take-the-punishment for our sins. As for these sins for which he took the punishment, it wasn’t only ours, but rather for the sin of all people here under-the-heavens.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “This Jesus Christ died in order to take care of our sins, and not just ours, rather he died in order to take care of the sins of all the people living on earth.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Yatzachi Zapotec: “He died to pay for our guilt in order that we may be at peace with God. Not by reason of our guilt only did he die, but rather by reason of the guilt of all mankind.”
Eastern Highland Otomi: “Because he delivered himself to pay for our sins. And not only our sins, but also all the sins here in the world, he paid for.”
Tzotzil: “He paid for our sins when he died on the cross. Not our sins alone he paid. He paid for the sins of all people also.”
Sayula Popoluca: “And he died for our sins so that God might pity us…” (Source for this and three above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)
God transcends gender, but most languages are limited to grammatical gender expressed in pronouns. In the case of English, this is traditionally confined to “he” (or in the forms “his,” “him,” and “himself”), “she” (and “her,” “hers,” and “herself”), and “it” (and “its” and “itself”).
Modern Mandarin Chinese, however, offers another possibility. Here, the third-person singular pronoun is always pronounced the same (tā), but it is written differently according to its gender (他 is “he,” 她 is “she,” and 它/牠 is “it” and their respective derivative forms). In each of these characters, the first (or upper) part defines the gender (man, woman, or thing/animal), while the second element gives the clue to its pronunciation.
In 1930, after a full century with dozens of Chinese translations, Bible translator Wang Yuande (王元德) coined a new “godly” pronoun: 祂. Chinese readers immediately knew how to pronounce it: tā. But they also recognized that the first part of that character, signifying something spiritual, clarified that each person of the Trinity has no gender aside from being God.
While the most important Protestant and Catholic Chinese versions respectively have opted not to use 祂, some Bible translations do and it is widely used in hymnals and other Christian materials. Among the translations that use 祂 to refer to “God” were early versions of Lü Zhenzhong’s (呂振中) version (New Testament: 1946, complete Bible: 1970). R.P. Kramers (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 152ff.) explains why later versions of Lü’s translation did not continue with this practice: “This new way of writing ‘He,’ however, has created a minor problem of its own: must this polite form be used whenever Jesus is referred to? Lü follows the rule that, wherever Jesus is referred to as a human being, the normal ta (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential ta (祂) is used.”
In that system one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and one for natural elements, non-liquid masses, and some spiritual entities (one other is used for large animals and another one for miscellaneous items). While in these languages the pronoun for spiritual entities used to be employed when referring to God, this has changed into the use of the human pronoun.
Lynell Zogbo (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 401ff) explains in the following way: “From informal discussions with young Christians especially, it would appear that, at least for some people, the experience and/or concepts of Christianity are affecting the choice of pronoun for God. Some people explain that God is no longer ‘far away,’ but is somehow tangible and personal. For these speakers God has shifted over into the human category.”
In Kouya, God (the Father) and Jesus are referred to with the human pronoun ɔ, whereas the Holy Spirit is referred to with a non-human pronoun. (Northern Grebo and Western Krahn make a similar distinction.)
Eddie Arthur, a former Kouya Bible translation consultant, says the following: “We tried to insist that this shouldn’t happen, but the Kouya team members were insistent that the human pronoun for the Spirit would not work.”
In Burmese, the pronoun ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) is used either as 2nd person (you) or 3rd person (he, him, his) reference. “This term clearly has its root in the religious language in Burmese. No ordinary persons are addressed or known by this pronoun because it is reserved for Buddhist monks, famous religious teachers, and in the case of Christianity, the Trinity.” (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff.)
In Thai, the pronoun phra`ong (พระองค์) is used, a gender-neutral pronoun which must refer to a previously introduced royal or divine being. Similarly, in Northern Khmer, which is spoken in Thailand, “an honorific divine pronoun” is used for the pronoun referring to the persons of the Trinity (source: David Thomas in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 445). In Urak Lawoi’, another language spoken in Thailand, the translation often uses tuhat (ตูฮัด) — “God” — ”as a divine pronoun where Thai has phra’ong even though it’s actually a noun.” (Source for Thai and Urak Lawoi’: Stephen Pattemore)
The English “Contemporary Torah” addresses the question of God and gendered pronouns by mostly avoiding pronouns in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (unless God is referred to as “lord,” “father,” “king,” or “warrior”). It does that by either using passive constructs (“He gave us” vs. “we were given”), by using the adjective “divine” or by using “God” rather than a pronoun.
Some Protestant English Bibles use a referential capitalized spelling when referring to the persons of the Trinity with “He,” “His,” “Him,” or “Himself.” This includes for instance the New American Standard Bible, but most translations, especially those published in the 21st century, do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In both languages this follows the language usage according to the Qur’an, which in turn predicts that usage (see Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 442ff. and The Bible Translator 1997, p. 433ff. ).
See also this chapter in the World Atlas of Language Structures on different approaches to personal pronouns.
And he: the Greek pronoun he is emphatic. It has the force of “someone with the qualities just indicated.” To bring this out one may say ‘and this one’ or ‘now it is he who.’
He is the expiation for our sins: the Greek verbal noun originally served to express the act of expiating, but in the present verse it refers either (1) to the person who expiates, or (2) to the means used in expiating. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, taking it in the latter sense, uses it for “sin offering,” or “atoning sacrifice” (Ezek 44.27, compare Num 5.8). Interpretation (1) and (2) seem to be equally acceptable. For our sins, or ‘the sins we do,’ see comments on 1.7.
Several restructurings of the clause are possible. In case (1) one may shift to ‘he (or Jesus Christ) expiates our sins.’ In case (2) the best form of the clause may be ‘he (or, Jesus Christ) is the means by which our sins are expiated,’ or, with a further shift, ‘through him God expiates our sins,’ or perhaps ‘Jesus Christ is the sin offering that causes our sins to be expiated.’
† The Greek term rendered expiation (here and 4.10) is derived from a verb which outside the New Testament generally means “to pacify,” namely, an offended deity. Another meaning of the verb, rarer in non-Christian writers, is to perform an act by which ritual or moral defilement is removed. In the Greek and Hellenistic world it was believed that the prescribed rituals (which might or might not include the slaughter of animals) could serve, so to speak, as a powerful disinfectant. Every one who had performed this ritual could be confident that the taint, the defilement, was removed.
In the Greek Old Testament the verb in question is the most general term for such rituals. Almost invariably it has the sense “to cleanse from defilement.” Where priests or other men are the ones who expiate, it refers to sacrifices or purifying rites. But in Hebrew thought it is also possible (as it never is among the Greeks) that God performs the action.
Accordingly the meaning of the Greek verb comes close to that of “to cleanse” (see 1.7 and comments) and “to forgive” (see 1.9 and comments). An interpretation along these lines leads to renderings like “Christ himself is the means by which our sins are forgiven” (Good News Translation), ‘who makes good all our sins,’ ‘it is he who is what-frees-from our sins’ (making use of a term that in the indigenous religion refers to the exorcising of magical influences), ‘he is the means of the disappearance of our sins,’ ‘he himself takes away sin,’ ‘he covers up our sins.’ The last mentioned rendering is fully acceptable in some languages (among them probably also Hebrew, for “to cover” is one of the meanings the corresponding Hebrew verb can have), but in other languages and cultures it would suggest hiding (so that God cannot see it), and therefore cannot be used.
And not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world, literally ‘not for ours only, but also for the whole world,’ a construction made possible by the fact that the Greek verb in question can take as goal either ‘the sin (of a man)’ or ‘the man (who sins).’ The two phrases may better be rendered as one or two full sentences; for example, ‘He covers up our sins, and also the sins of the whole world,’ ‘And not only our sins he makes up for. He makes up also for the sins of the whole world.’
The phrase the whole world may be rendered ‘all those who live on this earth,’ ‘men from everywhere’ (in a language that only possesses terms for a small geographic area), or simply “all men” (Good News Translation). For the noun see also comments on 2.15, meaning (3).
Quoted with permission from Haas, C., de Jonge, M. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on The First Letter of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.