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.” 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)

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.

Translation commentary on 1 Kings 14:16

He will give up Israel: If there is any possibility of misunderstanding who is intended by the pronoun he, it is certainly legitimate to translate using the noun “LORD” as in Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version.

The Hebrew verb rendered give … up in Revised Standard Version and “abandon” in Good News Translation is literally “give.” Provan argues that it should be translated “deal with” in light of the promises of God to Israel expressed in 1 Kgs 8.22-53, and especially in 2 Kgs 13.23 and 14.27. But the theological perspective of the author of 1–2 Kings certainly allows for the translation “forsake” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “abandon” (Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible), or “give up” (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible). Indeed, “deal with” seems too weak in the total context.

The use of Israel here must be understood to be the same as in the previous verse, which is almost certainly a reference to the people of the northern kingdom of Israel.

Because of the sins of Jeroboam, which he sinned: This expression is redundant. It is possible to remove the repetition as Good News Translation has done and still translate the meaning faithfully. The Hebrew word translated because of is biglal. The noun translated “dung” in verse 10 is galal. Perhaps the author intended a play on words. Walsh notes that verse 16 could be translated “Yahweh will give up Israel for the dung of the sins of Jeroboam….” Although it is very possible that readers of Hebrew would have thought of the word “dung” in verse 10, translators should not attempt to capture this play on words unless it would be natural in the receptor language.

He made Israel to sin should not be understood in the sense of Jeroboam forcing the people to do wrong against their will. Rather, it refers to his leading them in such a way that they willfully did what was displeasing to the LORD. In some languages this will be best expressed by a causative verb form. One African language translates “he did it so that the Israelites themselves sinned.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .