15“A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing in connection with any offense that may be committed. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained.
“know something is true because of seeing it” in Teutila Cuicatec (source for this and above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
“ones who will confirm that these-things that you have seen are true” in Kankanaey (source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
“ones who are to testify about these things, because it all happened before your eyes” in Tagbanwa (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
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” and likewise, many translations contain the “connotation of moral responsibility.”
Loma: “leaving the road” (which “implies a definite standard, the transgression of which is sin”)
Navajo (Dinė): “that which is off to the side” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
Toraja-Sa’dan: kasalan, originally meaning “transgression of a religious or moral rule” and in the context of the Bible “transgression of God’s commandments” (source: H. van der Veen in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 21ff. )
Bariai: “bad behavior” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
Sandawe: “miss the mark” (like the original meaning of the Greek term) (source for this and above: Ursula Wiesemann in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 36ff., 43)
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.”
Martin Ehrensvärd, one of the translators for the DanishBibelen 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. )
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Deuteronomy 19:15:
Kupsabiny: “A person should not be judged for a sin/mistake if it is one person who has given testimony that he has seen that person do a sin/mistake. (He) is to be accused if it is two or three people who have given testimony that they have seen that thing take place.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Do not punish a person for a crime or misdeed on the testimony of only one person. To give punishment, two or three people are needed.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “‘You (plur.) do- not -sentence/convict a man that he sinned because of a proof/testimony of just one witness. There must be two or three witnesses to prove/can-testify that a man/person has-sinned.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “‘If someone is accused of committing a crime, one witness/person who says, ‘I saw him do it’ is not enough. There must be at least two witnesses/people who say, ‘We saw him do it’. If there is only one witness, the judge must not believe that what he says is true.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
With the beginning of this new section, translators are urged to reintroduce Moses as the speaker.
This verse is very similar to 17.6.
Any crime or … any wrong … any offense that he has committed: this is somewhat wordy. After the first noun in Hebrew (translated crime), the next two are closely related forms of the same noun, usually translated “sin,” followed by the verb “to sin.” New International Version is a good model to follow: “any crime or offense he may have committed.”
In connection with: in English at least, this is a rather wordy and an unnecessary way of stating the matter. New International Version‘s English is much more natural and meaningful, as seen in the previous comment.
For of two witnesses, or of three, see 17.6. The meaning is the same: “at least two witnesses,” or “two or more witnesses.”
Shall a charge be sustained: that is, an accusation will be upheld, be judged to be true.
An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• Before you convict a person of a crime, at least two witnesses must be able to testify that the person did it [or, is guilty].
Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Deuteronomy. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2000. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.