altar

Click here to view graphically

The Greek, Latin and Hebrew that is translated as “altar” in English is translated in a number of ways:

  • Obolo: ntook or “raised structure for keeping utensils (esp. sacrifice)” (source: Enene Enene)
  • Muna: medha kaefoampe’a or “offering table” (source: René van den Berg)
  • Luchazi: muytula or “the place where one sets the burden down”/”the place where the life is laid down” (source: E. Pearson in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 160ff. )
  • Tzotzil: “where they place God’s gifts” (source: John Beekman in Notes on Translation, March 1965, p. 2ff.)
  • Tsafiki: “table for giving to God” (source: Bruce Moore in Notes on Translation 1/1992, p. 1ff.)
  • Noongar: karla-kooranyi or “sacred fire” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Uma: “offering-burning table” (source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “place for sacrificing” (source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “burning-place” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tibetan: mchod khri (མཆོད་​ཁྲི།) or “offering throne” (source: gSungrab website )
  • Bura-Pabir: “sacrifice mound” (source: Andy Warrren-Rothlin)
  • Kalanga: “fireplace of sacrifice” (source: project-specific notes in Paratext)
The Ignaciano translators decided to translate the difficult term in that language according to the focus of each New Testament passage in which the word appears (click or tap here to see the rest of this insight

Willis Ott (in Notes on Translation 88/1982, p. 18ff.) explains:

  • Matt. 5:23,24: “When you take your offering to God, and arriving, you remember…, do not offer your gift yet. First go to your brother…Then it is fitting to return and offer your offering to God.” (The focus is on improving relationships with people before attempting to improve a relationship with God, so the means of offering, the altar, is not focal.)
  • Matt. 23:18 (19,20): “You also teach erroneously: ‘If someone makes a promise, swearing by the offering-place/table, he is not guilty if he should break the promise. But if he swears by the gift that he put on the offering-place/table, he will be guilty if he breaks the promise.'”
  • Luke 1:11: “…to the right side of the table where they burn incense.”
  • Luke 11.51. “…the one they killed in front of the temple (or the temple enclosure).” (The focus is on location, with overtones on: “their crime was all the more heinous for killing him there”.)
  • Rom. 11:3: “Lord, they have killed all my fellow prophets that spoke for you. They do not want anyone to give offerings to you in worship.” (The focus is on the people’s rejection of religion, with God as the object of worship.)
  • 1Cor. 9:13 (10:18): “Remember that those that attend the temple have rights to eat the foods that people bring as offerings to God. They have rights to the meat that the people offer.” (The focus is on the right of priests to the offered food.)
  • Heb. 7:13: “This one of whom we are talking is from another clan. No one from that clan was ever a priest.” (The focus in on the legitimacy of this priest’s vocation.)
  • Jas. 2:21: “Remember our ancestor Abraham, when God tested him by asking him to give him his son by death. Abraham was to the point of stabbing/killing his son, thus proving his obedience.” (The focus is on the sacrifice as a demonstration of faith/obedience.)
  • Rev. 6:9 (8:3,5; 9:13; 14:18; 16:7): “I saw the souls of them that…They were under the table that holds God’s fire/coals.” (This keeps the concepts of: furniture, receptacle for keeping fire, and location near God.)
  • Rev. 11:1: “Go to the temple, Measure the building and the inside enclosure (the outside is contrasted in v. 2). Measure the burning place for offered animals. Then count the people who are worshiping there.” (This altar is probably the brazen altar in a temple on earth, since people are worshiping there and since outside this area conquerors are allowed to subjugate for a certain time.)

See also altar (Acts 17:23).


In the Hebraic English translation of Everett Fox it is translated as slaughter-site and likewise in the German translation by Buber / Rosenzweig as Schlachtstatt.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (1Kings 18:26)

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, the Jarai and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the exclusive pronoun, excluding Baal.

complete verse (1 Kings 18:26)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 1 Kings 18:26:

  • Kupsabiny: “Immediately, those prophets took the bullock that had been given to them and prepared (it). When that was done, they cried to Baal from morning throughout the day saying, ‘Hear our prayers oh, Baal!’ But there nothing happened. Those jumped repeatedly as they went around the altar.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “So they took the bull that had been given and prepared it.
    Then, taking the name of Baal, they prayed from morning until evening. They stood and shouted loudly "O Baal, please answer us!" But no voice came, no one answered. Then they danced and danced around the altar they had built.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “So the prophets of Baal took the bull which was-brought to them, and they prepared it. Then they prayed to Baal from morning until noon. They shouted, ‘O Baal, answer us (excl.)!’ They even danced around the altar which they made. But no one answered.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “So they killed one of the bulls and cut it up and placed the pieces on the altar. Then they called out to Baal all morning. They shouted, ‘Baal, answer us!’ But no one answered. There was no reply at all.
    Then they danced wildly around the altar that they had made.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Japanese benefactives (kotaete)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. Here, kotaete (答えて) or “answer” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on 1 Kings 18:26

They took the bull: If there is any danger that the readers will think that the pronoun they includes Elijah, it may be translated explicitly as “the prophets of Baal.”

Which was given them is literally “which he gave them.” The subject of the verb “gave” is not Elijah (see verses 23 and 25), so either this is an impersonal construction, which is correctly translated by a passive expression as in Revised Standard Version, or the implied subject is one of the unnamed prophets of Baal. The Septuagint, which omits this clause, is followed by some translations (New Jerusalem Bible, Osty-Trinquet), but the Masoretic Text makes sense and should be followed.

From morning until noon: The Hebrew word translated morning is a rather general term, but in this context it probably refers to the time early in the day when the contest started. The Hebrew word for noon will have to be translated “midday” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “the middle of the daytime” in some languages. The same Hebrew word is, in fact, translated “midday” by Revised Standard Version in verse 29.

There was no voice, and no one answered is literally “no voice and no one answering.” The Hebrew text does not simply say that no one answered; rather, it says that there was no one answering (so New American Bible). Compare also New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh: “there was no sound, and none who responded.”

They limped: Limped translates an intensive form of the Hebrew verb rendered “limping” in Revised Standard Version in verse 21. The writer apparently refers to some kind of cultic dance around the altar. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “they performed a hopping dance.” New Living Translation and Revised English Bible translate “they danced wildly.”

The altar which they had made: Instead of they had made, the Masoretic Text has “he had made.” A number of Hebrew manuscripts, as well as some of the early versions, read the third person plural verb. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text and suggests that the singular verb is impersonal and may be translated by a passive verb (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh “the altar that had been set up”) or an impersonal form such as “the altar which one had made.” Even if the reading in the Masoretic Text is followed, the rendering “they had made” may be followed for reasons of translation.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .