Hagar

The term that is transliterated as “Hagar” in English is translated in American Sign Language with the sign for the letter H and “escaped,” referring to Genesis 21:14. (Source: RuthAnna Spooner, Ron Lawer)


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

In Spanish Sign Language it is translated with a sign that combines “Egypt” and “servant,” referring to the fact that Hagar was a slave from Egypt (see Genesis 16:1). (Source: Steve Parkhurst)


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

covenant

Click here to view graphically

The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin that are translated as “covenant” in English are translated in a variety of ways. Here are some (back-) translations:

  • Mossi: “helping promise”
  • Vai: “a thing-time-bind” (i.e. “an arrangement agreed upon for a period of time”)
  • Loma (Liberia): “agreement”
  • Northwestern Dinka: “agreement which is tied up” (i.e. “secure and binding”)
  • Chol: “a word which is left”
  • Huastec: “a broken-off word” (“based on the concept of ‘breaking off a word’ and leaving it with the person with whom an agreement has been reached”)
  • Tetelcingo Nahuatl: “a death command” (i.e. “a special term for testament”)
  • Piro: “a promised word”
  • Eastern Krahn: “a word between”
  • Yaka: “promise that brings together” (source for this and all above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Nabak: alakŋaŋ or “tying the knot” (source: Fabian 2013, p. 156)
  • Nyamwezi: ilagano: “agreement, contract, covenant, promise” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Q’anjob’al: “put mouths equal” (representing agreement) (source: Newberry and Kittie Cox in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 91ff. )
  • Manikion, Indonesian: “God’s promise” (source: Daud Soesilo)
  • Natügu: nzesz’tikr drtwr: “oneness of mind” (source: Brenda Boerger in Beerle-Moor / Voinov, p. 164)
  • Tagalog: tipan: mutual promising on the part of two persons agreeing to do something (also has a romantic touch and denotes something secretive) (source: G. Henry Waterman in The Bible Translator 1960, p. 24ff. )
  • Tagbanwa: “initiated-agreement” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Guhu-Samane: “The concept [in Mark 14:24 and Matthew 16:28] is not easy, but the ritual freeing of a fruit and nut preserve does afford some reference. Thus, ‘As they were drinking he said to them, ‘On behalf of many this poro provision [poro is the traditional religion] of my blood is released.’ (…) God is here seen as the great benefactor and man the grateful recipient.” (Source: Ernest Richert in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. )
Law (2013, p. 95) writes about how the Ancient Greek Septuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew berith was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments (click or tap here to read more):

“Right from the start we witness the influence of the Septuagint on the earliest expressions of the Christian faith. In the New Testament, Jesus speaks of his blood being a kaine diatheke, a ‘new covenant.’ The covenant is elucidated in Hebrews 8:8-12 and other texts, but it was preserved in the words of Jesus with this language in Luke 22:20 when at the Last Supper Jesus said, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Jesus’s blood was to provide the grounds for the ‘new covenant,’ in contrast to the old one his disciples knew from the Jewish scriptures (e.g., Jeremiah 31:31-34). Thus, the earliest Christians accepted the Jewish Scriptures as prophecies about Jesus and in time began to call the collection the ‘Old Testament’ and the writings about Jesus and early Christianity the ‘New Testament,’ since ‘testament’ was another word for ‘covenant.’ The covenant promises of God (berith in Hebrew) were translated in the Septuagint with the word diatheke. In classical Greek diatheke had meant ‘last will, testament,’ but in the Septuagint it is the chosen equivalent for God’s covenant with his people. The author of Hebrews plays on the double meaning, and when Luke records Jesus’ announcement at the Last Supper that his blood was instituting a ‘new covenant,’ or a ‘new testament,’ he is using the language in an explicit contrast with the old covenant, found in the Jewish scriptures. Soon, the writings that would eventually be chosen to make up the texts about the life and teachings of Jesus and the earliest expression of the Christian faith would be called the New Testament. This very distinction between the Old and New Testaments is based on the Septuagint’s language.”

See also establish (covenant) and covenant (book).

complete verse (Galatians 4:24)

Following are a number of back-translations of Galatians 4:24:

  • Uma: “That story can be a teaching to us. Those two women stand-for the two ways to become straight in God’s sight. Hagar can be compared to people who want to become straight in God’s sight by their following of the Law of Musa. For all people who follow the Law of Musa live like slaves, for they submit to the Law of Musa like a slave submits to his noble. So, this Hagar is compared to Mount Sinai in the land of Arab. And this Hagar may be compared to Yerusalem village in this world. Because the inhabitants of Yerusalem live like slaves, enslaved by the Law of Musa.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “This is how one/we (dual) can take-it-as-a-parable/figure/parable it: These two women are figuratively God’s two covenants. Hagar, the slave woman is a figure of God’s covenant at the beginning, that is the law he gave to Musa there on mount Turusina. And the ones who follow the law are like slaves.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Now these two women are a parable. Their interpretation is the two ways which God established of becoming one with mankind. As for Hagar, the slave-woman, she is a shadow of the way given by God to Moses on the mount of Sinai; and this is the Law, because the children of Hagar — that is to say all of those who observe the Law — they are slaves.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “This that happened, it has a deep meaning/significance, because the two women can be compared to the two agreements-that God -presented to the people. The one agreement was the law that God gave to Moses on the mountain Sinai which is in Arabia. The one who is compared to this agreement, it is Hagar, because Hagar and her children were slaves, and likewise also the children of the agreement are slaves, meaning to say, those who base their salvation on their following the law.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “This situation is an illustration. Agar and Sara, they are pictures of God’s two initiated-agreements with people. Agar, she is a picture of God’s initiated-agreement when he gave the laws on the Mountain of Sinai, for all those under the jurisdiction of these laws, they are like slaves, just like Agar and her child.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “Here is a word of illustration. These two women are compared with the two agreements there are. This woman who was a servant is named Hagar. She illustrates the agreement made at the mountain of Sinai. Now the people who say that they will do what the law commands are those who become the children of Hagar.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Galatians 4:24

Paul now starts to explain what he means by the Old Testament facts he has just cited. These things can be understood as a figure is literally “which things are being allegorized.” To speak allegorically is to take a historical event or a statement and draw from it a meaning quite different from its original significance. In this case, the two women represent two covenants, that is they “stand for” (literally “are”) two covenants. For “covenant” see the notes on 3.15 and 17.

It may be necessary to restructure rather radically the statement these things can be understood as a figure. In the first place, these things must refer to the conception and birth of the two sons, and figure must be understood as a comparison which is designed to teach a particular truth. In some languages the closest equivalent may be “What happened in the case of Abraham’s two sons may be understood as referring to something important which is true,” “… may be compared to something else,” or “… may be understood as referring to something else.” The statements which follow must then normally be treated as similes or comparisons, for example, “the two women may be compared to the two covenants,” or “the two women are like, as it were, two covenants.”

Here again Paul finds it unnecessary to add a word of explanation about the term “covenant,” assuming common knowledge among his readers. The two covenants referred to are the covenant with Abraham (3.16-18), which has already been mentioned, and the covenant with Moses, enacted at Mount Sinai. Paul finds it more convenient and rewarding to mention the Sinai covenant first and to identify it specifically with Hagar, since no Jew would ever make the connection. Hagar was a slave, and her children would have the same status, unless the father was a free man and cared to adopt the children as his own. Paul concentrates on the status of the children as slaves and applies this to the covenant at Mount Sinai. Hagar represents this covenant, and those who are children of it (that is, share in it) are also born in slavery, since they are in bondage to the Law.

The arguments and the grammatical relations involved in verses 24 and 25 are unusually complex, and therefore it may be important to have some supplementary note indicating the basis for these allegorical comparisons. Such data can be given simply in terms of the historical facts in question. One of the difficulties involved in the second part of this verse is that the one may refer, as far as the Greek text is concerned, either to one of the women or to one of the covenants, because grammatically both terms are feminine in gender. One may therefore say “one of these covenants comes from Mount Sinai,” or “one of these women, that is, Hagar, comes from Mount Sinai.” In either case, of course, the covenant is made equivalent to Hagar, and Hagar is identified with it. The clause whose children are born in slavery may be made a separate sentence in a number of languages, for example, “Hagar’s children became slaves when they were born,” or “… were born as slaves.”

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .