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 (Hebrews 8:7)

Following are a number of back-translations of Hebrews 8:7:

  • Uma: “If for example the Law of Musa had no lacks, there would have been no need to hunt for another way to connect mankind with God.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “If there had been no fault in the first covenant, na, God would not have changed that covenant.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “For as for that first way, it could not help us (incl.). For if that first way had helped, it would not have been necessary to replace it with a new way.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “If the first agreement had had no defects, it would not have been necessary for another-one to replace-it.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “For if there was no lack in that initiated-agreement in the past, well why is this new one needed?” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “Concerning the agreement which was before, no person arose who did all that God said. Therefore God hunted for how to make a new agreement.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Hebrews 8:7

This verse partly repeats 7.11b. There it is the priesthood which is in focus, not the covenant, but 8.6 has just shown how closely priesthood, covenant, and promises are linked.

If there had been nothing wrong …: the first covenant was shown to be defective because it could not do what it was set up to do (7.11), that is, deal effectively with sin. Revised Standard Version‘s “faultless” does not mean that a covenant could itself have some moral defect. Good News Translation makes it clear that the defect is one of function, that is to say, the covenant did not work.

If there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant may be expressed as “If the first covenant had been able to do everything it should have done” or “If there had been nothing which the first covenant could not do.”

There may, however, be serious problems in rendering verse 7, because of the condition which is contrary to fact. Therefore the structure may require some modification; for example, “There was something wrong with the first covenant, and therefore a second one was necessary” or “Because the first covenant was not able to do all that it should, it was necessary to have a second covenant.”

There would have been no need for a second one gives the meaning of a Greek idiom, literally “look for,” which should not be translated literally. Phillips “no need to look for a second” and Translator’s New Testament “God would not have been seeking a place for a second” (similarly Barclay) try unsuccessfully to do so.

A second one: not until verse 13 does the author call the first covenant old, implying “out of date.” But since in this verse the contrast between first and second is one of temporal sequence, it may be necessary to speak of “former” and “latter.”

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 .