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)
  • Kâte: ʒâʒâfic or “tie together” (source: Renck 1990, p. 108)
  • Nyamwezi: ilagano: “agreement, contract, covenant, promise” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Bariai: “true talk” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
  • 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. )
  • Chichewa: pangano. This word can also be translated as a contract, agreement, or a treaty between two parties. In Chewa culture, two people or groups enter into an agreement to help each other in times of need. When entering into an agreement, parties look at the mutual benefits which will be gained. The agreement terms are mostly kept as a secret between the parties and the witnesses involved. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
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).

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Covenant in the Hebrew Bible .

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (2Cor. 3:1)

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 exclusive form (referring only to Paul).

Source: SIL International Translation Department (1999).

complete verse (2 Corinthians 3:1)

Following are a number of back-translations of 2 Corinthians 3:1:

  • Uma: “But don’t you say that we (excl.) are praising ourselves again here/now! We(excl.) are not like some of those religion teachers there [with you (implied in locational)]. When they arrive in your village, they show letters of praise from others so that you will receive them. And if they leave your village, they also request praise letters from you. We(excl.) don’t need to get letters like that.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “Perhaps you say that we (excl.) make ourselves great again so that we (excl.) might be accepted by you. We (excl.) are not like the others. We (excl.) don’t have to carry letters that we (excl.) are truely gurus (religious teacher) when we (excl.) go to visit you, or to ask for a letter from you when we (excl.) go to a different place.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Perhaps you are thinking mistakenly that this is just only our boast. We are not like others who teach, because you won’t accept them if they have no letter which they can show which says that their activities are not bad. And in the same way also, they are not accepted by other people if they have no letter like that which comes from you.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Maybe you think/say that here we (excl.) are boasting-about ourselves (excl.) again, but is it indeed-the-case (RQ implying of course not) that we (excl.) need to do that? Is it indeed-the-case that we (excl.) need letters to introduce (lit. make-known) ourselves to you? Is it also necessary that we (excl.) have-you -write something that we (excl.) will show to people in other towns/countries where we (excl.) go? That (empathy particle) is what others are doing, but we (excl.) don’t need to.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Maybe you mistakenly-thought that we (excl.) are praising ourselves so that you will accept us (excl.). What’s this, are we (excl.) like others who need a letter to show to you which testifies to the good-quality of their ways/nature, or a letter which is your testimony concerning their ways/nature which they will show to others they are teaching?” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “Let it not be said that I speak this word in order to boast. Do you think that it is necessary for me to carry a letter to deliver to you which tells that the word I do is good? Or that you need to give me a letter to take with me which says that the word I do is good, like some need?” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
  • Warlpiri (verses 1-3) “You people talk and reckon that I am just boasting and calling myself big. But me, you people know me as a Church Apostle. I am not like many others who reckon that they themselves are Apostles. They show you papers/letters with their names so that you can look at them and know, so they reckon, that they are Apostles. And as for me, I am not asking you so that you can give me a paper like that so that I can go around showing it. You people are like a paper with story that God wrote in my heart. When other people see you, they think about me as God’s Apostle. And they know you also that you are like a letter that Christ Jesus wrote on paper. He did not write the story on stone with something like charcoal. In your hearts he wrote it with God’s Holy Spirit, God who is really alive. This certainly is the paper I show to people.” (Source: Carl Gross)

formal 2nd person plural pronoun (Japanese)

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 formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).

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

Translation commentary on 2 Corinthians 3:1

This verse is made up of two questions, the second of which is rather complex in form. The main point of this verse is to deny Paul’s need to introduce himself or to produce written recommendations from some third party to the people in Corinth, who already knew him well. In many languages such questions will serve the same purpose, but in some cases it will be better to drop the question form and to change them into affirmative or negative statements:
• You may think that we are once again commending ourselves to you, but this is not so. Some people need letters of recommendation to you or from you. But certainly we do not need such letters.

While this overall structure may need to be adopted, the details on how to render certain elements within it will be discussed in the paragraphs that follow.

To commend ourselves again: his question anticipates the assumption that some Christians in Corinth may criticize him for boasting because of his comments in the preceding verse (2.17). The question is rhetorical and is his way of saying that they are not boasting about themselves again. Ourselves does not include the readers. The word again probably suggests that some Corinthian Christians had previously accused Paul of commending himself to them. To commend oneself was to state one’s credentials and establish one’s credibility (see also 4.2; 5.12). This, of course, should be unnecessary for someone already well known. The verb commend has the basic meaning “stand beside” or “stand with” but may also mean “prove” (7.11), “show,” or “confirm.” It is used eight times in 2 Corinthians (3.1; 4.2; 5.12; 6.4; 7.11; 10.12, 18; 12.11), showing that it is a special problem in Paul’s relationship with the Corinthians at the time this letter was written, but it does occur four times elsewhere in Paul’s writings (Rom 3.5; 5.8; 16.1; and Gal 2.18). The reference in Rom 16.1 is most closely related to the usage here.

In Greek the form of the question Or do we need…? implies that a negative answer is expected. Anchor Bible captures the intended negative response as follows: “Surely, we do not need … do we?” God’s New Covenant similarly shows that the intended answer is negative: “Is not the truth rather that we are in no need, as certain people are, of commendatory letters…?”

Letters of recommendation were common in the ancient world (see Acts 18.27 and Rom 16.1-2). Such letters were written to introduce someone and to give approval to that person. Barclay calls these “letters of introduction.”

Paul does not identify who the some people are who needed letters of recommendation, but in the context of 2 Corinthians these are persons who came to Corinth from somewhere else with letters of recommendation from recognized authorities and who are opposed to Paul. Probably the same persons are referred to in 2.17 and 10.2. In this context the indirect reference to his opponents as “some other people” (Good News Translation) suggests that Paul is critical of them. Phillips expresses the implicit criticism well: “Do we need, as some apparently do…?”

Or from you: Contemporary English Version makes explicit the purpose of letters of recommendation from the Corinthians: “Do we need letters … from you to tell others about us?”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellingworth, Paul. A Handbook on Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1993. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .