Apali: “God’s one with talk from the head” (“basically God’s messenger since head refers to any leader’s talk”) (source: Martha Wade)
Michoacán Nahuatl: “clean helper of God” (source: B. Moore / G. Turner in Notes on Translation 1967, p. 1ff.)
Noongar: Hdjin-djin-kwabba or “spirit good” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Wè Northern (Wɛɛ): Kea ‘a “sooa or “the Lord’s soldier” (also: “God’s soldier” or “his soldier”) (source: Drew Maust)
Iwaidja: “a man sent with a message” (Sam Freney explains the genesis of this term [in this article ): “For example, in Darwin last year, as we were working on a new translation of Luke 2:6–12 in Iwaidja, a Northern Territory language, the translators had written ‘angel’ as ‘a man with eagle wings’. Even before getting to the question of whether this was an accurate term (or one that imported some other information in), the word for ‘eagle’ started getting discussed. One of the translators had her teenage granddaughter with her, and this word didn’t mean anything to her at all. She’d never heard of it, as it was an archaic term that younger people didn’t use anymore. They ended up changing the translation of ‘angel’ to something like ‘a man sent with a message’, which is both more accurate and clear.”)
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 to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. When the referent is God, the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御 or み) is used as in mi-tsukai (御使い) or “messenger (of God).” (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
Following are a number of back-translations of 2 Peter 2:11:
Uma: “Even the angels who are stronger and more powerful than those lying teachers, even they do not dare to criticize or bring-accusation against those powerful beings in front of the Lord God.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Even the angels, they are really strong and are greater than these deceiving teachers, they don’t go into the presence of God to insult or accuse their fellow angels.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Even the angels of God whose power is greater than those lying teachers, they would not dare to criticize the supernatural beings when they accuse those beings before God.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Even the angels whose power is greater (lit. higher) than theirs, they don’t speak-evil-before the Lord -of their companions who have sinned.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “But even the angels whose ability is far bigger and who are stronger than those teachers of lies, they don’t insult and blame others in the presence of the Lord.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “In contrast, the angels, who have more authority than these, when they are in God’s presence do not speak bad about those who have less authority than they do.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
The Hebrew adonai in the Old Testament typically refers to God. The shorter adon (and in two cases in the book of Daniel the Aramaic mare [מָרֵא]) is also used to refer to God but more often for concepts like “master,” “owner,” etc. In English Bible translations all of those are translated with “Lord” if they refer to God.
In English Old Testament translations, as in Old Testament translations in many other languages, the use of Lord (or an equivalent term in other languages) is not to be confused with Lord (or the equivalent term with a different typographical display for other languages). While the former translates adonai, adon and mare, the latter is a translation for the tetragrammaton (YHWH) or the Name of God. See tetragrammaton (YHWH) and the article by Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff. for more information.
In the New Testament, the Greek term kurios has at least four different kinds of use:
referring to “God,” especially in Old Testament quotations,
meaning “master” or “owner,” especially in parables, etc.,
as a form of address (see for instance John 4:11: “Sir, you have no bucket”),
or, most often, referring to Jesus
In the first and fourth case, it is also translated as “Lord” in English.
Most languages naturally don’t have one word that covers all these meanings. According to Bratcher / Nida, “the alternatives are usually (1) a term which is an honorific title of respect for a high-ranking person and (2) a word meaning ‘boss’, ‘master’, or ‘chief.’ (…) and on the whole it has generally seemed better to employ a word of the second category, in order to emphasize the immediate personal relationship, and then by context to build into the word the prestigeful character, since its very association with Jesus Christ will tend to accomplish this purpose.”
When looking at the following list of back-translations of the terms that translators in the different languages have used for both kurios and adonai to refer to God and Jesus respectively, it might be helpful for English readers to recall the etymology of the English “Lord.” While this term might have gained an exalted meaning in the understanding of many, it actually comes from hlaford or “loaf-ward,” referring to the lord of the castle who was the keeper of the bread (source: Rosin 1956, p. 121).
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight
Following are some of the solutions that don’t rely on a different typographical display (see above):
Iyansi: Mwol. Mwol is traditionally used for the “chief of a group of communities and villages” with legal, temporal, and spiritual authority (versus the “mfum [the term used in other Bantu languages] which is used for the chief of one community of people in one village”). Mwol is also used for twins who are “treated as special children, highly honored, and taken care of like kings and queens.” (Source: Kividi Kikama in Greed / Kruger, p. 396ff.)
Binumarien: Karaambaia: “fight-leader” (Source: Oates 1995, p. 255)
Warlpiri: Warlaljamarri (owner or possessor of something — for more information tap or click here)
We have come to rely on another term which emphasizes God’s essential nature as YHWH, namely jukurrarnu (see tetragrammaton (YHWH)). This word is built on the same root jukurr– as is jukurrpa, ‘dreaming.’ Its basic meaning is ‘timelessness’ and it is used to describe physical features of the land which are viewed as always being there. Some speakers view jukurrarnu in terms of ‘history.’ In all Genesis references to YHWH we have used Kaatu Jukurrarnu. In all Mark passages where kurios refers to God and not specifically to Christ we have also used Kaatu Jukurrarnu.
New Testament references to Christ as kurios are handled differently. At one stage we experimented with the term Watirirririrri which refers to a ceremonial boss of highest rank who has the authority to instigate ceremonies. While adequately conveying the sense of Christ’s authority, there remained potential negative connotations relating to Warlpiri ceremonial life of which we might be unaware.
Here it is that the Holy Spirit led us to make a chance discovery. Transcribing the personal testimony of the local Warlpiri pastor, I noticed that he described how ‘my Warlaljamarri called and embraced me (to the faith)’. Warlaljamarri is based on the root warlalja which means variously ‘family, possessions, belongingness’. A warlaljamarri is the ‘owner’ or ‘possessor’ of something. While previously being aware of the ‘ownership’ aspect of warlaljamarri, this was the first time I had heard it applied spontaneously and naturally in a fashion which did justice to the entire concept of ‘Lordship’. Thus references to Christ as kurios are now being handled by Warlaljamarri.” (Source: Stephen Swartz, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )
Mairasi: Onggoao Nem (“Throated One” — “Leader,” “Elder”) or Enggavot Nan (“Above-One”) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Obolo: Okaan̄-ene (“Owner of person(s)”) (source: Enene Enene)
Lotha Naga: Opvui (“owner of house / field / cattle”) — since both “Lord” and YHWH are translated as Opvui there is an understanding that “Opvui Jesus is the same as the Opvui of the Old Testament”
Seediq: Tholang, loan word from Min Nan Chinese (the majority language in Taiwan) thâu-lâng (頭儂): “Master” (source: Covell 1998, p. 248)
Thai: phra’ phu pen cao (พระผู้เป็นเจ้า) (divine person who is lord) or ong(kh) cao nay (องค์เจ้านาย) (<divine classifier>-lord-boss) (source: Stephen Pattemore)
Arabic often uses different terms for adonai or kurios referring to God (al-rabb الرب) and kurios referring to Jesus (al-sayyid الـسـيـد). Al-rabb is also the term traditionally used in Arabic Christian-idiom translations for YHWH, and al-sayyid is an honorary term, similar to English “lord” or “sir” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin).
Tamil also uses different terms for adonai/kurios when referring to God and kurios when referring to Jesus. The former is Karttar கர்த்தர், a Sanskrit-derived term with the original meaning of “creator,” and the latter in Āṇṭavar ஆண்டவர், a Tamil term originally meaning “govern” or “reign” (source: Natarajan Subramani).
Burunge: Looimoo: “owner who owns everything” (in the Burunge Bible translation, this term is only used as a reference to Jesus and was originally used to refer to the traditional highest deity — source: Michael Endl in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 48)
Yagaria: Souve, originally “war lord” (source: Renck, p. 94)
Aguacateco: Ajcaw ske’j: “the one to whom we belong and who is above us” (source: Rita Peterson in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 49)
Konkomba: Tidindaan: “He who is the owner of the land and reigns over the people” (source: Lidorio 2007, p. 66)
Chichewa: AmbuyeAmbuye comes from the singular form Mbuye which is used to refer to: (1) someone who is a guardian or protector of someone or group of people — a grandparent who has founded a community or village; (2) someone who is a boss or master over a group of people or servants and has absolute control over them; (3) owner of something, be it a property, animals and people who are bound under his/her rule — for people this was mostly commonly used in the context of slaves and their owner. In short, Mbuye is someone who has some authorities over those who call him/her their “Mbuye.” Now, when the form Ambuye is used it will either be for honorific when used for singular or plural when referring to more than one person. When this term is used in reference to God, it is for respect to God as he is acknowledged as a guardian, protector, and ruler of everything. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation).
Hdi uses rveri (“lion”) as a title of respect and as such it regularly translates adon in the Old Testament. As an address, it’s most often with a possessive pronoun as in rvera ɗa (“my lion” = “my lord” or “sir”). So, for example, Genesis 15:2 (“O Lord God”) is Rvera ɗa Yawe (“My lion Yahweh”) or Ruth to Boaz in Ruth 2:13: “May I find your grace [lit. good-stomach] my lion.” This ties in nicely with the imagery of the Lord roaring like a lion (Hosea 11:10; Amos 3:8; Joel 3:16). Better still, this makes passages like Revelation 5:5 even richer when we read about rveri ma taba məndəra la Yuda, “the Lion of the tribe of Judah”. In Revelation 19:16, Jesus is rveri ta ghəŋa rveriha “the lion above lions” (“lord of lords”). (Source: Drew Maust)
Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew adonai was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments: “Another case is the use of kurios referring to Jesus. For Yahweh (in English Bibles: ‘the Lord‘), the Septuagint uses kurios. Although the term kurios usually has to do with one’s authority over others, when the New Testament authors use this word from the Septuagint to refer to Jesus, they are making an extraordinary claim: Jesus of Nazareth is to be identified with Yahweh.”
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 to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. When the referent is God, the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御 or み) can be used, as in mi-mae (御前) or “before (God)” in the referenced verses. In some cases in can also be used in reference to being before a king, such as in 1 Samuel 16:16.
Living Water is produced for the Bible translation movement in association with Lutheran Bible Translators. Lyrics derived from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®).
This verse has some similarities with Jude 9. However, Peter omits any reference to the story of Michael and the body of Moses, and instead comes up with a general statement. Could it be that he could assume a knowledge of Jude among his readers? A more probable reason is that this is in keeping with his tendency to reduce if not eliminate altogether quotations from and allusions to literature outside the Old Testament. (See, for example, comments on his treatment of Jude 6 in 2.4, and on Jude 7 in 2.6).
The verse starts with whereas, which marks the contrast of what follows to the previous statement. In some languages it will be quite natural to express this contrast as follows: “Consider the angels (or, God’s messengers)! They are so….”
The angels are described as greater in might and power. Might and power are words of similar meaning. Their being mentioned together may be either a hendiadys (two expressions for a single idea), with might describing power, hence “mighty power,” or a way of marking intensification, hence “having so much more power.” A third possibility may be mentioned, and that is to interpret might as emphasizing outward physical strength, and power as emphasizing inward, spiritual virtue. It should be noted, however, that power can also be used to describe physical strength, and it is clearly understood as spiritual strength when properly marked as such by the context. Therefore the phrase angels, though greater in might and power may also be rendered as “angels, though they are much more powerful physically and spiritually (in their hearts)” or “angels, who are so much more powerful….”
The Greek text does not make clear who the angels are being compared with. Are they being compared with the false teachers or with the “glorious ones” in verse 10? Either alternative seems to be acceptable, depending on how them (in do not pronounce … upon them) is interpreted. The verse then can be saying one of the following:
1. The false teachers insult the glorious ones, but in contrast the angels, who are much more powerful than the false teachers, do not even do this (that is, insult the glorious ones). Here them refers to the false teachers, and the ones that the angels do not insult are the glorious ones.
2. The false teachers insult the glorious ones, but in contrast the angels, who are even more powerful than the glorious ones, do not even do this (that is, insult the glorious ones.) Here them is interpreted as referring to the glorious ones rather than to the false teachers.
3. The false teachers insult the glorious ones, but in contrast the angels, who are even more powerful than the false teachers, do not insult the false teachers. Here them refers to the false teachers, who are also the ones the angels do not insult.
4. The false teachers insult the glorious ones, but in contrast the angels, who are more powerful than the glorious ones, do not insult the false teachers.
Good News Translation takes the first of these interpretations, except that it is not very clear who are the ones that the angels do not insult. It seems clear in New International Version that the angels do not insult the glorious ones, but it is not clear with whom the angels are being compared. An American Translation follows the second of these alternatives: “even angels far superior to these beings in strength and power bring no abusive charge before the Lord.” Most other translations leave all these ambiguities alone.
It is best to resolve the above ambiguities in translation. For the purposes of this Handbook, the first two alternatives seem preferable, and of these two the second is slightly favored.
Reviling judgment is similar to the expression found in Jude 9, and we may refer to the discussion there. As the New Revised Standard Version footnote indicates, there is a textual problem connected with before the Lord: “Other ancient authorities read before the Lord; others lack the phrase.” Some very important manuscripts have the reading “from the Lord,” whereas some other manuscripts omit the phrase altogether. The difference in Greek between “from the Lord” and “before the Lord” is a matter of a suffix only: para kuriou (genitive case) as against para kuriō (dative). Most modern translations follow the reading “before the Lord,” which means “in the presence of the Lord” (Good News Translation), who functions as judge. “Lord” here most probably refers to God. The picture is that of a heavenly court, where the “glorious ones” are on trial, and the angels are witnesses, but they refrain from harsh and insulting words in their testimony. The phrase before the Lord may also be expressed as “when they were before the Lord (God),” “when they were in the presence of God,” or in certain languages it will be necessary to say “when they were standing before God.” If “from the Lord” is the accepted reading, then the Lord will not be judge but accuser, and the angels are the Lord’s messengers, who, however, do not use slanderous words in presenting the Lord’s accusations before the court, because of their respect for these celestial beings. The omission of the words before the Lord in some manuscripts can be explained as an influence of the text of Jude 9.
An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• Consider the angels (or, God’s messengers)! They are much more powerful than the false teachers. But they do not use insulting language when they accuse these teachers in the presence of God.
Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Second Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
greater in strength and power: These two expressions mean almost the same thing, so they are probably a pair of words that Peter used together in this sentence in order to emphasize how powerful the angels that he is talking about are. Then this expression means, “have much greater power.”
In the Greek it is not clear whom Peter was saying the angels were stronger than, but in many languages it will be necessary to state this. Many scholars think that Peter meant to say that the angels were stronger than the false teachers. Others think he meant that the angels were stronger than the celestial beings. If your language requires that you say whom the angels are stronger than, we recommend that you say that they are stronger than the false teachers. For example:
so much stronger and mightier than these false teachers (Good News Translation)
2:11b
dare to bring such slanderous charges against them: Peter said that the angels do not bring slanderous accusations against them. Here is another way to translate this:
do not pronounce a reviling judgement upon them. (Good News Translation)
It is not clear to whom Peter was referring when he used the word them.
(1) In some translations, them refers to the heavenly beings of verse 10c. If this is the correct interpretation, then the meaning is that the false teachers insult the heavenly beings, but the angels, who are even more powerful, do not.
(Berean Standard Bible, New International Version (2011 Revision), New English Bible, The Jerusalem Bible)
(2) In the Good News Translation, them refers to the false teachers. If this is the correct interpretation, then Peter was contrasting the false teachers, who insult the heavenly beings, with the angels. Even when the angels are telling God about the wrong things the false teachers have done, they do not use insulting language to do so.
It is recommended that you follow the first interpretation (1).
Lord: This is referring to God, not Christ, in this verse. See note on 2:9a.
Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible. BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.