15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.
The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “high priest” in English is translated as “the ruler of the priests of our nation” in Yatzachi Zapotec, as “very great priest” in Chol (source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.), as “first over the priests” in Ayutla Mixtec, and “chief of the priests” in Desano (source for this and one above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.).
In Uma it is translated as “Big Priest,” in Western Bukidnon Manobo as “high sacrificer,” and in Tagbanwa as “Most-important Priest of God.” (See here.)
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, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the writer and the readers of this letter).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
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. )
Following are a number of back-translations of Hebrews 4:15:
Uma: “For this Big Priest of ours, he is not a priest who cannot feel/experience our weakness(es). He did feel [them], for he was tested also in every way like us, but he did not sin.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “And this our (dual) High Priest has mercy on us (incl.) because he knows our (incl.) weaknesses, because he was human like we (incl.) are. He experienced all different kinds of temptations from the leader of demons like we (incl.) do also but he was not carried to sin.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “and as for this Jesus, our (incl.) high priest, He already understand our weakness because of our humanity, for He has experienced being tempted long ago by Satan in every way that we are tempted also, but He, by contrast, was not successfully tempted.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “And this Highest Priest of ours, he knows how to feel-with us in our weakness, because all the kinds of temptation that we experience, he also experienced, but as for him by-contrast, he absolutely didn’t sin.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “As for this Far-from ordinary Priest of ours, he can feel pity for us very much in our weaknesses which lead us into sin, because as for him, (he) too experienced all the temptations/tests which come to us people. But as for him, he did not sin.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “This one who is our priest pities us when he sees how we live in misery because we are not strong. He knows what we go through when we live in misery because he too has been urged to commit sin. But not any sin did he commit.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
The possessive relationship in the phrase Our High Priest may have to be expressed differently in some languages; for example, “The High Priest on our behalf” or “He who serves as High Priest for us.”
The Greek contains a double negative: “we do not have a high priest who is not able to sympathize….” Most translations simplify this by making it into an emphatic positive statement. This may be expressed as “Our High Priest is one who completely sympathizes with our weaknesses” or “… is one who understands well our weaknesses.”
A literal translation along the lines of Revised Standard Version could be misunderstood in some languages as a contradiction: “we have a great high priest [verse 14] … we have not a high priest….” The meaning is “Our High Priest is not one who cannot sympathize….”
In this verse a comparison begins between Jesus and the Old Testament priest, who offered sacrifices on behalf of those who had disobeyed the Law without intending to do so (Num 15.22-29). The comparison will be developed in 5.2-3. This is the point of the reference to our weaknesses, and translators should avoid any term which could include deliberate sin. The writer believes there are other sins so serious that they cannot be forgiven or wiped out (10.26; compare Num 15.30-31). Our weaknesses may be best expressed as “how weak we are” or “how little strength we have.”
To feel sympathy means to understand someone “from inside,” that is, “to feel with him.” Often it means “to share his suffering,” but the idea of suffering is not stressed here, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch translates “who has no understanding for our weaknesses.” The Greek word used here is related in form to the verb translated be gentle in 5.2 and is similar in meaning.
If, as has been suggested, a positive expression rather than a double negative is used in the first part of verse 15, the adversative phrase On the contrary should be replaced by a conjunction such as “For.” The second sentence in verse 15 (Good News Translation) simply provides the reason why Jesus Christ as High Priest is able to be fully sympathetic.
Some translators have mistakenly interpreted who was tempted in every way that we are as “who wanted to sin in every way that we do.” It is, of course, better to translate “whom the Devil tried to make sin in every way that he tempts us.”
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.