sin

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)

In Warao it is translated as “bad obojona.” Obojona is a term that “includes the concepts of consciousness, will, attitude, attention and a few other miscellaneous notions.” (Source: Henry Osborn in The Bible Translator 1969, p. 74ff. ). See other occurrences of Obojona in the Warao New Testament.

Martin Ehrensvärd, one of the translators for the Danish Bibelen 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. )

See also sinner.

complete verse (James 4:17)

Following are a number of back-translations of James 4:17:

  • Uma: “So, a person who knows to do what is good, and he doesn’t do it, it is sin to him.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “So-then, whoever knows the good but does not do it, he is already sinning.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Remember that if any one of us (incl.) knows what is good that we should do and he does not do it, he has sinned against God.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “So-then, the person who knows the right-thing that he should do but he doesn’t carry-through and do it, he sins.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Therefore consider this. The person who knows what is good, which he must be doing, but that’s not what he is doing, that is indeed his sin.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “The person who knows what good to do but does not do it, then this is a sin in that he does not want to do the good he knows.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

Translation commentary on James 4:17

As a conclusion and a climax of his argument, James defines sin, not in terms of doing what is forbidden by God, but in failing to do what we know to be the right thing to do. It is the sin of omission.

Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin: there is a change from second person plural to third person singular at this point. The shift to a more impersonal tone indicates that James may be quoting a well-known proverbial saying.

The Revised Standard Version rendering, unfortunately, fails to bring out the connection between verses 16 and 17 that is there in Greek. The connective word is rendered variously; for example, “So” (Goodspeed, New American Bible), “then” (New International Version, New Revised Standard Version), “So then” (Barclay, Good News Translation), “Well then” (Phillips), “What it comes to is” (Revised English Bible). While we recognize that in Greek there is an obvious attempt to make a connection, we have to admit that it is by no means easy to figure out the precise relationship with the previous section. A number of attempts have been made, without much success, to relate the saying to the section(s) that come before this. One observation, however, may be made. It is quite possible that James, having told his readers what is right to do—that is, not to leave God out of their future but to take him into all of their plans—now wants to warn them as well as to encourage them that if they fail to do it they commit sin. Looking at it from another angle, it may be that James wants his readers to know that the “sin of omission” (failing to do what is right) is no less serious than the “sin of commission” (being presumptuous in leaving God out of their plans). However, if we are not convinced of a real connection here, an alternative is to take this verse as a summary of the important teachings in the previous sections. In this case we may want to make verse 17 a separate paragraph, as Good News Translation has done (so also Luther 1984, Phillips, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

The clause what is right to do is literally “to do good” (King James Version). The word “good” is an opposite of the word “evil” in verse 16. If the word is rendered as “evil” in verse 16, it will be good to have the word “good” here; thus, for example, “the good he ought to do” (New International Version). On the other hand, if we render the word “evil” in verse 16 as “wrong,” it will be appropriate to have the word “right” here; thus “the right thing to do” (Revised English Bible, New Revised Standard Version). For him it is sin means it is a sin on his part, and the clause may be rendered as “he commits sin” (similarly New Revised Standard Version) or “we are guilty of sin” (Good News Translation).

Alternative translation models for this verse are:
• So, if we don’t do what we know is right, we have sinned.
• So, if you don’t do what you know is right, you have sinned (Contemporary English Version).

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .