The Greek that is translated as “sacrifice” in English is translated in Huba as hatǝmachi or “shoot misfortune.”
David Frank (in this blog post ) explains: “How is it that ‘shoot misfortune’ comes to mean sacrifice, I wanted to know? Here is the story: It is a traditional term. Whenever there were persistent problems such as a drought, or a rash of sickness or death, the king (or his religious advisor) would set aside a day and call on everyone to prepare food, such as the traditional mash made from sorghum, or perhaps even goat. The food had to be put together outside. The king or his religious advisor would give an address stating what the problem was and what they were doing about it. Then an elder representing the people would take a handful of that food and throw it, probably repeating that action several times, until it was considered to be enough to atone for all the misfortune they had been having. With this action he was ‘shooting (or casting off) misfortune’ to restore well-being to his people. As he threw the food, he would say that this is to remove the misfortune that had fallen on his people, and everybody would respond by saying aɗǝmja, ‘let it be so.’ People could eat some of this food, but they could not bring the food into their houses, because that would mean that they were bringing misfortune into their house. There is still a minority of people in this linguistic and cultural group that practices the traditional religion, but the shooting of misfortune is no longer practiced, and the term ‘shoot misfortune’ is used now in Bible translation to refer to offering a sacrifice. Aɗǝmja is how they translate ‘amen.'”
Following are a number of back-translations of Hebrews 10:5:
Uma: “That’s why when Kristus arrived in the world, he said to God like this: ‘You do not request worship-gifts and offerings, you do not like worship-gifts that are burned or livestock that is slaughtered to pay-for sin. But [it is] my body [that] you have prepared as the worship-gift that you like.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “This is hep the reason why Almasi, when he was about to come here into the world said to God, he said, ‘You don’t want animal sacrifices and gifts of the people. But you have prepared for me a body.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And we know this because at the time long ago when Christ came here to the world, He said to His father God, He said, ‘It’s not the sacrifices of animals that You want, but rather You created a body for Me to use and that’s what You want to be sacrificed.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “That is the reason that when Cristo came to the earth, he said to God, ‘It’s not butchered animals and other offerings that you (sing.) desire. Neither is it the burning of animals and other offerings for sin that make-you-(sing.)-happy. Therefore there is a body that you (sing.) have prepared for me.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “That’s why when Cristo’s first coming here to the world was near, he said to his Father, ‘It’s not the blood of animals which are sacrificed, or other things being-given, that you (sing.) were-pleased-with but rather it was this blood of mine which will be shed. Therefore there is the body of a man/human that you have caused-to-come-into-being for me.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Therefore Christ, when he was about to come here on earth, said to God: ‘Concerning the animals people kill to offer as sacrifices, you do not look well upon them as able to clear the people’s sins. Rather you have determined that there be my body which will become a sacrifice.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Chichewa: “For this reason when Christ came down here, he said, | ‘O God you did not desire sacrifices or offerings, | but a body you prepared for me.” (Interconfessional translation, publ. 1999) (Source: Wendland 1998, p. 100)
The Greek Christos (Χρηστός) is typically transliterated when it appears together with Iésous (Ἰησοῦς) (Jesus). In English the transliteration is the Anglicized “Christ,” whereas in many other languages it is based on the Greek or Latin as “Kristus,” “Cristo,” or similar.
When used as a descriptive term in the New Testament — as it’s typically done in the gospels (with the possible exceptions of for instance John 1:17 and 17:3) — Christos is seen as the Greek translation of the Hebrew mashiaḥ (המשיח) (“anointed”). Accordingly, a transliteration of mashiaḥ is used, either as “Messiah” or based on the Greek or Latin as a form of “Messias.”
This transliteration is also used in the two instances where the Greek term Μεσσίας (Messias) is used in John 1:41 and 4:25.
In some languages and some translations, the term “Messiah” is supplemented with an explanation. Such as in the GermanGute Nachricht with “the Messiah, the promised savior” (Wir haben den Messias gefunden, den versprochenen Retter) or in Muna with “Messiah, the Saving King” (Mesias, Omputo Fosalamatino) (source: René van den Berg).
In predominantly Muslim areas or for Bible translations for a Muslim target group, Christos is usually transliterated from the Arabic al-Masih (ٱلْمَسِيحِ) — “Messiah.” In most cases, this practice corresponds with languages that also use a form of the Arabic Isa (عيسى) for Jesus (see Jesus). There are some exceptions, though, including modern translations in Arabic which use Yasua (يَسُوعَ) (coming from the Aramaic Yēšūa’) alongside a transliteration of al-Masih, Hausa which uses Yesu but Almahisu, and some Fula languages (Adamawa Fulfulde, Nigerian Fulfulde, and Central-Eastern Niger Fulfulde) which also use a form of Iésous (Yeesu) but Almasiihu (or Almasiifu) for Christos.
In Indonesian, while most Bible translations had already used Yesus Kristus rather than Isa al Masih, three public holidays used to be described using the term Isa Al Masih. From 2024 the government will use Yesus Kristus in those holiday names instead (see this article in Christianity Today ).
Other solutions that are used by a number of languages include these:
Dobel: “The important one that God had appointed to come” (source: Jock Hughes)
Noongar: Keny Mammarap or “The One Man” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Mairasi: “King of not dying for life all mashed out infinitely” (for “mashed out,” see salvation; source: Lloyd Peckham)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “One chosen by God to rule mankind” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Bacama: Ma Pwa a Ngɨltən: “The one God has chosen” (source: David Frank in this blog post )
Binumarien: Anutuna: originally a term that was used for a man that was blessed by elders for a task by the laying on of hands (source: Desmond Oatridges, Holzhausen 1991, p. 49f.)
Noongar: Keny Boolanga-Yira Waangki-Koorliny: “One God is Sending” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uab Meto: Neno Anan: “Son of heaven” P. Middelkoop explains: “The idea of heavenly power bestowed on a Timorese king is rendered in the title Neno Anan. It is based on the historical fact that chiefs in general came from overseas and they who come thence are believed to have come down from heaven, from the land beyond the sea, that means the sphere of God and the ghosts of the dead. The symbolical act of anointing has been made subservient to the revelation of an eternal truth and when the term Neno Anan is used as a translation thereof, it also is made subservient to a new revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The very fact that Jesus came from heaven makes this translation hit the mark.” (Source: P. Middelkoop in The Bible Translator 1953, p. 183ff. )
In Finnish Sign Language both “Christ” and “Messiah” are translated with sign signifying “king.” (Source: Tarja Sandholm)
“Christ / Messiah” in Finnish Sign Language (source )
Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew mashiah was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments (click or tap here to read more):
“Another important word in the New Testament that comes from the Septuagint is christos, ‘Christ.’ Christ is not part of the name of the man from Nazareth, as if ‘the Christs’ were written above the door of his family home. Rather, ‘Christ’ is an explicitly messianic title used by the writers of the New Testament who have learned this word from the Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew mashiach, ‘anointed,’ which itself is often rendered in English as ‘Messiah.’ To be sure, one detects a messianic intent on the part of the Septuagint translator in some places. Amos 4:13 may have been one of these. In the Hebrew Bible, God ‘reveals his thoughts to mortals,’ but the Septuagint has ‘announcing his anointed to humans.’ A fine distinction must be made, however, between theology that was intended by the Septuagint translators and that developed by later Christian writers. In Amos 4:13 it is merely possible we have a messianic reading, but it is unquestionably the case that the New Testament writers exploit the Septuagint’s use of christos, in Amos and elsewhere, to messianic ends.”
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.
For this reason (or “That is why”) points back to verse 4. This makes a contrast with what, for the writer, is the main point of Psalm 40.6-8. The underlying argument, made clear in verses 9b-10, is as follows: animal sacrifices cannot deal with sin, because the animals have no choice about whether or not they will be sacrificed. Christ, on the other hand, offered himself, by his own choice, in response to his Father’s will.
The first part of this verse assumes three things: first, that Christ existed before he became man (see 1.2-3); second, that parts of the Old Testament can be understood as having been spoken by Christ (see 2.12-13); and third, that Psalm 40.6-8 refers to the time of Christ’s beginning his life as a human being (see 1.6 and comments).
Christ is implied (see RSV footnote). Most modern translations supply the name Christ; Christ was used in 9.24, 28. One or two even use “Jesus,” but this is less satisfactory, since Hebrews keeps this name for use with special emphasis (2.9; 3.1; 6.20; 10.19; 12.2).
Most commentators take the term rendered the world to mean “the earth.” A different Greek word is used in 1.6. The psalm quotation would then refer to the incarnation, probably in contrast to 1.6, rather than to Christ’s entry into the heavenly world when he was enthroned at the right hand of God.
The clause when Christ was about to come into the world may be expressed as “when there was not much time before Christ was to come into the world,” “when Christ was soon to come into the world,” or “when Christ was almost coming into the world.”
To God is added, to explain You in the next line. He said is literally “he says,” and when Christ was about to come is literally “coming.” The writer uses the present tense, because this passage of the Old Testament is still available to him as he writes, and is still valid. Some translations put both the original “he says” and “coming” into the past tense, since it was in the past that Christ came into the world: Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “Therefore Christ said, when he came into the world, to God…”; Barclay “This is why Christ, as he was coming into the world, said to God….”
The tenses in the quotation, verses 5b-7, need careful examination. Revised Standard Version‘s verbs refer to completely past events. “I have come” (verse 7, Revised Standard Version) suggests a past event, the consequences of which continue into the present. Good News Translation‘s Here I am (verse 7) emphasizes this present aspect to the exclusion of the past. The time at which Christ “said” the words in verse 7 is fixed by verse 5, that is, “when Christ came into the world.” Hebrews emphasizes the difference between the past system of sacrifices and the later event of Christ’s coming (Then, verse 7, repeated in verse 9). In English “you did not want” (verse 5) and “you took no pleasure” (verse 6) are appropriate tenses to show that this was God’s attitude in the past toward the sacrificial system.
Sacrifices and offerings are singular in the Greek of this verse, which means “You do not want any sacrifice or offering.” For the writer of Hebrews, the meaning is the same, as he shows by using the plural in verse 8. You do not want sacrifices and offerings often requires expansion in translation, since sacrifices and offerings imply certain events in which people participate. Therefore it may be rendered “You do not want people to offer sacrifices and to give you gifts” or “You do not desire people to sacrifice animals and to make offerings to you.”
A body: the Septuagint of Psalm 40 differs from the Hebrew, which has “ears”; the RSV footnote translates “ears thou hast dug for me” in Psalm 40.6. There is no doubt that Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version give the meaning of the way the Psalm is quoted in Hebrews. A strictly literal translation of you have prepared a body for me might suggest that the body was a kind of supernatural strait jacket into which Christ’s personality would temporarily fit. It may be clearer to employ some such translation as “you have given me a body” or “you have caused me to have a body.”
Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.