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.

David

The name that is transliterated as “David” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with the sign signifying king and a sling (referring to 1 Samuel 17:49 and 2 Samuel 5:4). (Source: John Elwode in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 78ff.)


“Elizabeth” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España

In German Sign Language it is only the sling. (See here ).


“David” in German Sign Language (source )

The (Protestant) Mandarin Chinese transliteration of “David” is 大卫 (衛) / Dàwèi which carries an additional meaning of “Great Protector.”

Click or tap here to see a short video clip about David (source: Bible Lands 2012)

Translation commentary on 1 Samuel 20:1

Fled: see the comments on 19.18. In this context some languages may prefer to say “continued running away” or “started running again,” since this is not the first time David tried to get away from Saul.

Naioth in Ramah: see the comments on 19.18.

The difference between the verbs came (Revised Standard Version) and “went” (Good News Translation) is a matter of the perspective of the writer. Since the writer of the books of Samuel was probably not located where Jonathan was, the verb “went” will be more appropriate in most languages. And since David had previously been where Jonathan was, some may prefer to say “went back [to Jonathan].”

The words came and said before Jonathan sound strange in English. Indeed, certain manuscripts of the Septuagint change the word order to something that sounds more natural: “came before Jonathan and said.” In any case this seems to be the meaning of the unusual order, so it is possible to translate simply “came and said to Jonathan.” And since a question follows, many translators may wish to render it “came and asked Jonathan.”

The three questions What have I done? What is my guilt? And what is my sin…? are not three different matters. Rather they focus on a single fact. David cannot see that he has done anything at all to deserve Saul’s anger. For this reason the conjunction and introducing the third question may be out of place in many languages. Since the intent of these questions is to deny forcefully any wrongdoing, one or more of them may be translated by an emphatic statement like “I have done nothing wrong!” Because of the cumulative effect of the three items, they should not be reduced unless absolutely required by the receptor language. In using the words guilt and sin, David is not thinking of any technical distinctions. They are simply synonyms for wrongdoing.

Seeks my life: the Hebrew word (nefesh), translated life, is often rendered “soul” in other contexts. But the whole expression indicates that Saul wanted to take away David’s life; that is, he wanted to kill him.

In some languages the crucial question about why Saul wanted to kill David may come more naturally at the beginning of the series of questions (so Contemporary English Version) rather than at the end.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .