swear, vow

The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “swear (an oath)” or “vow” is translated as “God sees me, I tell the truth to you” (Tzeltal), “loading yourself down” (Huichol), “to speak-stay” (implying permanence of the utterance) (Sayula Popoluca), “to say what he could not take away” (San Blas Kuna), “because of the tight (i.e. “binding”) word which he had said to her face” (Guerrero Amuzgo), “strong promise” (North Alaskan Inupiatun) (source for all above: Bratcher / Nida), “eat an oath” (Nyamwezi — source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext), or sswa nak/”drink an oath” (Jju — source: McKinney 2018, p. 31).

In Bauzi “swear” can be translated in various ways. In Hebrews 6:13, for instance, it is translated with “bones break apart and decisively speak.” (“No bones are literally broken but by saying ‘break bones’ it is like people swear by someone else in this case it is in relation to a rotting corpse’ bones falling apart. If you ‘break bones’ so to speak when you make an utterance, it is a true utterance.”) In other passages, such as in Matthew 26:72, it’s translated with an expression that implies taking ashes (“if a person wants everyone to know that he is telling the truth about a matter, he reaches down into the fireplace, scoops up some ashes and throws them while saying ‘I was not the one who did that.'”). So in Matthew 26:72 the Bauzi text is: “. . . Peter took ashes and defended himself saying, ‘I don’t know that Nazareth person.'” (Source: David Briley)

See also swear (promise) and Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’, or ‘No, No’.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Luke 1:73)

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 people of Israel).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

complete verse (Luke 1:73)

Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 1:73:

  • Noongar: (combined with verse 74) “He spoke solemnly to Abraham, our ancestor. He gave his sacred word. He would save us so evil people do not hurt us, and so we can work for God, without fear.” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Uma: “He promised and vowed to Abraham our ancestor long ago, that he would free us from the power of our enemies, so that we could praise him without fear,” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “that is the covenant that he swore about to our (incl.) forefather Ibrahim.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “His promise long ago to our ancestor Abraham was very strong” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “He also promised our ancestor Abraham” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “This is his far from ordinary promise which he promised with an oath to our forefather Abraham,” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Chichewa (interconfessional translation, 1999): “He also promised Abraham, our ancestor, by making an oath,” (Source: Wendland 1998, p. 154)

Translation commentary on Luke 1:73

Exegesis:

horkon hon ōmosen ‘the oath which he swore’; horkon is apposition to diathēkēs in the preceding verse (the genitive has been changed into an accusative because of the following hon, inverted attraction), or a second object to mnēsthēnai; the former interpretation is preferable.

horkos ‘oath’; the word refers here to Gen. 22.16; 26.3, cf. Ps. 105.8-10 and Jer. 11.5.

omnuō ‘to swear,’ ‘to take an oath,’ ‘to promise under oath,’ here followed by pros with accusative to indicate the party to whom the promise under oath is made.

tou dounai hēmin ‘to give us,’ belongs to v. 73 according to the traditional division in verses, but is printed as part of the next line in Nestle, and taken with v. 74 in Revised Standard Version. Syntactically vv. 74 and 75 are dependent upon it and it is, accordingly, treated with them.

Translation:

The explicative function of the apposition may be indicated by, ‘that is, the oath he swore…,’ ‘how he swore with an oath…,’ or in a relative clause, ‘which was the oath he swore….’

The oath which he swore. The two terms are semantically related, and often also formally cognate. Therefore one of the two may better be rendered more generically, e.g. ‘what he said/promised under oath,’ ‘the oath he spoke/used’ (Javanese, Malay), ‘the word/promise he swore,’ ‘what he promised, lifting up his hand’ (cf. Apache), ‘his oath.’ If the oath complex is unknown in the culture one may say, ‘the vow/promise he made (solemnly).’ A similar simplification is found in Tboli, where the normal formula for swearing an oath, i.e. ‘if I don’t keep my promise to you, God will punish me,’ is felt to make no sense when God himself is the one making the oath.

Quoted with permission from Reiling, J. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1971. For this and other handbooks for translators see here . Make sure to also consult the Handbook on the Gospel of Mark for parallel or similar verses.