9Then Abimelech called Abraham and said to him, “What have you done to us? How have I sinned against you, that you have brought such great guilt on me and my kingdom? You have done things to me that ought not to be done.”
The name that is transliterated as “Abraham” in English is translated in virtually all sign languages, including American Sign Language with the sign signifying “hold back arm” (referring to Genesis 22:12).
In Tira it is transliterated as Abaram. The choice of this, rather than the widely-known “Ibrahim,” as used in the Tira translation of the Qu’ran, was to offset it against the Muslim transliteration which originates from Arabic. (Source: J.A. Naudé, C.L. Miller Naudé, J.O. Obono in Acta Theologica 43/2, 2023, p. 129ff. )
Click or tap here to see two short video clips about Abraham (source: Bible Lands 2012)
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. )
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, the Jarai and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the exclusive pronoun, excluding Abraham.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Genesis 20:9:
Newari: “Then Abimelech summoned Abraham and asked — ‘What have you done to us? What harm have I done to you that [you] were about to give me and my country such great guilt? What you have done to me is not good.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “Then Abimelec had-called Abraham and asked, ‘What have- you -done to us (excl.)? What is my sin against you that you placed in a great trespass my entire kingdom? (It is) not right what- you -have-done.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Abimelech then summoned Abraham, and said to him, ‘You should not have done that to us! Did I do something wrong to you, with the result that you are causing me and the people in my kingdom to be guilty of committing a great sin? You have done things to me that should not be done/you should not have done!'” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Verses 9-10 introduce a new dialogue, in which Abimelech accuses Abraham of wrongdoing that has brought grief upon him and his people. In verses 11-13 Abraham defends himself with what appear to be excuses for his misconduct.
Then Abimelech called Abraham: called, as in verse 8, means “sent for Abraham” or “had Abraham brought to him.”
And said to him: in some languages it is necessary to indicate that Abraham came to the king before Abimelech spoke to him; for example, “When Abraham came, Abimelech said” or “After Abraham arrived, Abimelech said….”
What have you done to us?: this question is rhetorical and does not seek to find out what Abraham has done so much as to ask why he did it or to scold him: “Look what you have done to us!” “How wrongly you have dealt with us!” Abimelech’s speech probably reveals that the court officials are still present. Us refers to Abimelech and others, excluding Abraham.
And how have I sinned against you: Abimelech continues with a second rhetorical question. If keeping the form of a rhetorical question is inappropriate in the translator’s language, it can be shifted, for example, to a negative statement: “I have done nothing wrong to you,” “I have not offended you,” “I am not guilty of harming you.”
That you have brought on me and my kingdom a great sin?: brought on me … means “you [Abraham] have caused me and my people to do a bad thing.” It is also possible that Abimelech is placing the guilt on Abraham by asking, as in Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, “How have I offended you so that you have brought such a great sin on me and on my people?” Although this clause is contained within the question punctuation in Revised Standard Version and other English translations, it really states the consequence of the assumed wrong in the first part. This kind of question may require some adjustments in translation. Note Good News Translation “… to make you bring this disaster….” In some languages it may be more natural to begin a new sentence and switch the order of the question and the consequence to say, for example, “You have brought on me and my kingdom a great sin. But how have I sinned against you?” If the question is expressed as a negative statement, we may translate, for example, “I have not offended you, but you have brought on me and my people….” We may also make the second part become the question: “I have not wronged you; why then have you brought on me and my people…?”
Kingdom refers not to the political and geographical area where the king rules but more exactly to the people he rules. Even if the infertility mentioned in verses 17-18 affects only the king’s harem, it indirectly affects all his people. Therefore Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch and others translate “me and my people.”
You have done to me things that ought not to be done: in Hebrew the order is reversed, “things that ought not to be done you have done to me.” Here Abimelech appeals to a common set of values that people generally should be able to rely on. He thus appears to be on a higher moral ground than Abraham. We may also translate “You have done something to me that nobody should do to another person” or “You have wronged me. Such wrongs should not be done to anybody.”
Quoted with permission from Reyburn, William D. and Fry, Euan McG. A Handbook on Genesis. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.