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.

Translation commentary on Numbers 7:78 - 7:83

On the twelfth day Ahira the son of Enan, the leader of the men of Naphtali …: Verses 78-83 are almost identical to verses 12-17 (see the comments there). For Ahira the son of Enan, the leader of the men of Naphtali, see 1.15.

It is clear that Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have translated verses 12-83 very differently. Revised Standard Version follows closely the arrangement of the Hebrew text. The detailed repetition in the Hebrew may well have served to emphasize how amazingly rich and generous these gifts of the Israelites were for twelve consecutive days. (It is left implied whether or not the offerings were sacrificed immediately every day.) More importantly, this text falls in line with the theology of worship that is expressed in such ritual and commemorative texts in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. They underscore the fellowship that was to prevail between the LORD and his covenant people of Israel. This worship was a communal religious exercise that promoted the unity and harmony of the people among themselves and between this chosen nation and their ever-present God.

This text belongs to the ancient Near Eastern genre of temple accounts, or archives, which listed standard quantities and items in parallel columns. It has been suggested that verses 12-88 match in many respects the list layout of quantities and items as found in ancient Near Eastern cuneiform tablets and inscriptions (so Levine, pages 259-266). As we have noted, the Hebrew employs fewer verbs as the text progresses. This feature fits with such a list structure.

On the face of it, Good News Translation may seem to be an easier model to follow than Revised Standard Version. Good News Translation actually displays a list (of days, tribes and leaders) and this perhaps shows something of the background to the structure of chapter 7. However, the disadvantage is that Good News Translation separates the leaders’ names from the items that they offered. This does not correspond with the list structure in the ancient cuneiform tablets, in which items and persons who offered them are kept together: they are mentioned in one set of parallel columns. The Hebrew text and Revised Standard Version keep the items and leaders together as well. The repetitive sequence may have carried some liturgical significance too as this passage was later recalled in worshipful remembrance of the LORD’s establishment of a place of meeting and worship in the very midst of his chosen people.

In conclusion we recommend that translators follow the textual arrangement of the Hebrew text and Revised Standard Version. However, Revised Standard Version occasionally uses verbs where the Hebrew does not, thus changing the text from a list with enumerations into a more narrative-sounding text. We have already commented on this when it occurs in Revised Standard Version. Where the target language allows, translators should avoid this. Rather, a translation along the lines of Revised Standard Version should be displayed more in accordance with the style of an administrative list (see the model above for verses 24-29). This will also make the translation easier to read when it is printed out on the page. The stereotyped, repetitive nature of the original text should be preserved in translation because in this case, the form calls attention to its function as an official record or list.

Quoted with permission from de Regt, Lénart J. and Wendland, Ernst R. A Handbook on Numbers. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .