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.

addressing God

Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed. The first example is from a language where God is always addressed distinctly formal whereas the second is one where the opposite choice was made.

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight

Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.

As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator 2002, p. 210ff.), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.

In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.

Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”

In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.

Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking (source Philip Noss).

In Dutch and Western Frisian translations, however, God is always addressed with the formal pronoun.

See also female second person singular pronoun in Psalms.

Translation commentary on 2 Chronicles 6:36

Verses 36-39 present a seventh and final situation in which God’s people may turn to him in prayer. Such a situation of exile is threatened in Deut 28.36-37 if the people disobey God. Verses 36-38 in Hebrew contain a repeated play on the verbs shabah (“to carry captive”) and shub (“to repent/turn”). The verb shub in different forms in Hebrew is translated “lay it [to heart]” (verse 37) and “repent” (verses 37 and 38).

This verse in Hebrew begins a long conditional sentence. Verses 36-38 express the “if” part of this long sentence. Verse 39 forms the concluding “then” part of the conditional sentence. In addition to this long, complex sentence, verse 36 contains the parenthetical comment for there is no man who does not sin. It will probably be necessary in many languages to restructure the form of these verses for the sake of clarity (see the model below).

If they sin against thee: If is better rendered “When” (Good News Translation, New International Version), since the following parenthetical statement makes it clear that there is no doubt about the people sinning. For clarity the pronoun they may be translated “your people” (Good News Translation) or “the Israelites” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente).

For there is no man who does not sin: This parenthetical statement is set off by dashes in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, while Revised English Bible uses parentheses and states the truth in the form of a rhetorical question, saying “and who is free from sin?” New Century Version handles this digression by beginning the verse with “Everyone sins, so your people will also sin against you.” This kind of restructuring may be helpful to make the meaning more easily understood in other languages. In this context the words no man may be translated “no human being” (Nouvelle Bible Segond) or simply “no one” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New International Version) since the focus is not on men in contrast to women but rather on people in contrast to God.

And thou art angry with them: The Hebrew verb rendered art angry occurs only rarely in the Old Testament. It is used a total of 14 times and is always used in relation to God, usually in relationship to some punishment given to the people. Some languages have figurative expressions for anger, such as “gets bad liver,” “liver hurts,” or “heart becomes hot.”

And dost give them to an enemy may be rendered “and allow their enemies to defeat/overcome them.”

So that they are carried away captive to a land far or near: These words refer to a future exile. The Hebrew text is literally “and their captors will take them captive….” Revised Standard Version has used a passive verb here, although the Hebrew verb is active with an explicit subject (“their captors”). An active expression may be kept here by saying “and their enemies capture them and take them away into another land.” Contemporary English Version says “you … let their enemies drag them away to foreign countries.” According to the text, the land of their exile may be far or near. The Good News Translation expression “even if that land is far away” leaves implied the fact that the land might also be nearby.

A model that restructures this verse is:

• There is no person on earth who does not commit sin. So when your people do sin and make you angry, you allow their enemies to overcome them and take them as captives to another land, which may be near or far away.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .