The Greek that is often translated as “trespass” or “transgression” in English is translated as “missing the commandment” in Kipsigis and “to step beyond the law” in Navajo (Dinė). (Source: Bratcher / Nida 1961)
In Tepeuxila Cuicatec it is translated as “thing not reached.” Marjorie Davis (in The Bible Translator 1952, p. 34ff. ) explains: “[This] implies that the goal was not reached, the task was not finished, or of finished, it was not satisfactorily done. According to the Cuicateco way of thinking of one does not what is expected of him, he offends [or: trespasses] and is an offence.”
The Greek and Hebrew terms that are translated as “redeem” or “redemption” in most English translations (see more on that below) are translated in Kissi as “buying back.” “Ownership of some object may be forfeited or lost, but the original owner may redeem his possession by buying it back. So God, who made us for Himself, permitted us to accept or reject Him. In order to reconcile rebellious mankind He demonstrated His redemptive love in the death of His Son on our behalf.
“The San Blas Kuna describe redemption in a more spiritual sense. They say that it consists of ‘recapturing the spirit.’ A sinful person is one in rebellion against God, and he must be recaptured by God or he will destroy himself. The need of the spirit is to be captured by God. The tragedy is that too many people find their greatest pleasure in secretly trying to elude God, as though they could find some place in the universe where He could not find them. They regard life as a purely private affair, and they object to the claims of God as presented by the church. They accuse the pastor of interfering with the privacy of their own iniquity. Such souls, if they are to be redeemed, must be ‘recaptured.'” (Source: Nida 1952, p. 138)
Click or tap here for more translations or “redeem” / “redemption”
In Ajië a term is used, nawi, that refers to the “custom of planting a small tree on land cursed either by the blood of battle or some calamity.” Clifford (1992, p. 83ff.) retells the story: “Maurice Leenhardt tells how he finally arrived at a term that would express ‘redemption.’ Previous missionaries had interpreted it as an exchange — an exchange of life, that of Jesus for ours. But in Melanesian thinking more strict equivalents were demanded in the exchanges structuring social life. It remained unclear to them how Jesus’ sacrifice could possibly redeem mankind. So unclear was it that even the natas [Melanesians pastors] gave up trying to explain a concept they did not understand very well themselves and simply employed the term “release.” So the matter stood, with the missionary driven to the use of cumbersome circumlocutions, until one day during a conversation on 1 Corinthians 1:30, [Melanesian pastor and Leenhardt’s co-worker] Boesoou Erijisi used a surprising expression: nawi. The term referred to the custom of planting a small tree on land cursed either by the blood of battle or some calamity. ‘Jesus was thus the one who has accomplished the sacrifice and has planted himself like a tree, as though to absorb all the misfortunes of men and to free the world from its taboos.’ Here at last was a concept that seemed to render the principle of ‘redemption’ and could reach deeply enough into living modes of thought. ‘The idea was a rich one, but how could I be sure I understood it right?’ The key test was in the reaction of students and natas to his provisional version. They were, he reports, overjoyed with the ‘deep’ translation.”
In Folopa, the translation team also found a deeply indigenous term. Neil Anderson (in Holzhausen 1991, p. 51) explains: “While I was explaining the meaning of the [concept] to the Folopa men, I could see their faces brighten. They said that this was a common thing among them: ‘If someone falls a tree and it tips to the wrong side, killing someone, the relatives of the injured party claim the life of the guilty party. But in order to save his life, his relatives make amends. Pigs, shells (which are still used as currency here) and other valuables are given to the relatives of the deceased as payment for the life of the guilty party. In this way he can live because others stand up for him.’ Full of joy, I began to utilize this thought to the difficult translation of the word ‘redemption.’ Mark 10:45 reads now, translated back from the Folopa: ‘Jesus came to make an atonement, by which he takes upon himself the punishment for the evil deeds of many. He came so that through his death many might be liberated.’ After working on this verse for half an hour, I read it to my friends. They became silent and moved their slightly bowed heads thoughtfully back and forth. Finally, one of them took the floor, ‘We give a lot to right a wrong. But we have never given a human being as a price of atonement. Jesus did a great work for us when he made restitution. Because he died, all of us now don’t have to bear the punishment we deserve. We are liberated.'”
In Samoan the translation is togiola which originally refers to a fine mat. John Bradshaw (in The Bible Translator 1967, p. 75ff. ) explains: “The rite of submission applies in cases of grave sin which demands an extreme punishment: offenses such as murder, adultery or disrespectful behavior towards a chief. Submission is made in expectation of forgiveness. The rite is normally enacted at dawn. The prisoner and his family, or even his whole village bow down in silence before the house of the chief or other offended party. The prisoner heads the group and is covered with a fine mat, offered as his ransom. In other words, he submits himself completely to the authority of those whom he has offended. Many such submissions have been successfully offered and received. Those inside the house will come out, and bring into it those offering submission. The priestly orators speak sweetly and all join in a meal. The fine mat is accepted, while the prisoner is set free and forgiven. He no longer goes in fear of retribution for his sin. (…) If now we turn to the relation between the believer and the Redeemer, we notice at once that the word togiola, literally the price of one’s life, was the word used to denote the fine mat with which the sinner covered himself in the rite of Submission. The acceptance of the togiola set free the prisoner. It was inevitable that togiola should render lutron, ransom, as in Matthew 20:28.”
“In Hebrew there are two terms, ga’al and padah, usually rendered ‘to redeem,’ which have likewise undergone significant changes in meaning with resulting obscurity and misunderstanding. Both terms are used in the Old Testament for a person being redeemed from slavery. In the case of padah, the primary emphasis is upon the redemption by means of payment, and in ga’al the redemption of an individual, usually by payment, is made by some relative or an individual of the same clan or society. These two words, however, are used in the Old Testament in circumstances in which there is no payment at all. For example, the redemption of Jews from Egypt is referred to by these two terms, but clearly there was no payment made to the Egyptians or to Pharaoh.
“In the New Testament a related problem occurs, for the words agorázō and exagorazó, meaning literally ‘to buy’ or ‘to buy back’ and ‘to buy out,’ were translated into Latin as redimo and into English normally as ‘redeem.’ The almost exclusive association of Latin redimo with payment became such a focal element of meaning that during the Middle Ages a theory developed that God had to pay the Devil in order to get believers out of hell and into heaven.
“As in the case of the Old Testament, New Testament contexts employing the Greek verb lutroó, literally ‘to redeem’ or ‘to ransom,’ do not refer primarily to payment but focus upon deliverance and being set free. But even today there is such a heavy tradition of the theological concept of payment that any attempt to translate lutroó as ‘to deliver’ or ‘to set free’ is misjudged by some as being heretical.” (Source: Nida 1984, p. 114f.)
“The Greek word charis, usually translated by English ‘grace,’ is one of the desperations of translators. The area of meaning is exceptionally extensive. Note the following possible meanings for this word in various contexts of the New Testament: ‘sweetness,’ ‘charm,’ ‘loveliness,’ ‘good-will,’ ‘loving-kindness,’ ‘favor,’ ‘merciful kindness,’ ‘benefit,’ ‘gift,’ ‘benefaction,’ ‘bounty,’ and ‘thanks.’ The theological definition of ‘unmerited favor’ (some translators have attempted to employ this throughout) is applicable to only certain contexts. Moreover, it is quite a task to find some native expression which will represent the meaning of ‘unmerited favor.’ In some languages it is impossible to differentiate between ‘grace’ and ‘kindness.’ In fact, the translation ‘kindness’ is in some cases quite applicable. In other languages, a translation of ‘grace’ is inseparable from ‘goodness.’ In San Miguel El Grande Mixtec a very remarkable word has been used for ‘grace.’ It is made up of three elements. The first of these is a prefixial abstractor. The second is the stem for ‘beauty.’ The third is a suffix which indicates that the preceding elements are psychologically significant. The resultant word may be approximately defined as ‘the abstract quality of beauty of personality.’” (Source: Nida 1947, p. 223)
Other translations include (click or tap here to see more):
Inuktitut: “God’s kindness that enables us” (source: Andrew Atagotaaluk)
Nukna: “God gave his insides to one.” (“The ‘insides’ are the seat of emotion in Nukna, like the heart in the English language. To give your insides to someone is to feel love toward them, to want what is best for them, and to do good things for them.” (Source: Matt Taylor in The PNG Experience )
Uma: “(God’s) white insides” (source: Uma Back Translation)
the Germandas Buch translation by Roland Werner (publ. 2009-2022) uses a large variety of translations, including “undeserved friendliness,” “wonderful work of God,” “loving attention,” “generous,” but also “undeserved grace” (using the traditional German term Gnade)
In Latvian the term žēlastība is used both for “grace” and “mercy.” (Source: Katie Roth)
In the Contemporary Chichewa translation (2002/2016) and the Buku Lopatulika version (1922/2018) it is translated with chisomo. This word was earlier used to refer to a charm that people were using for others to like them. It meant that on his/her own, a person would not be qualified to be liked by people. But with this charm, people would look at that person more kindly. This is also used in a number of Old Testament passages for what is typically translated as “find favor” or “gracious” in English, including Exodus 33:12, Numbers 6:25, or Psalm 84:11. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
For Muna, René van den Berg explains the process how the translation team arrived at a satisfactory solution: “Initial translation drafts in Muna tended to (…) use the single word kadawu ‘part, (given) share, gift,’ but this word is really too generic. It lacks the meaning component of mercy and kindness and also seems to imply that the gift is part of a larger whole. Consequently we now [translate] according to context. In wishes and prayers such as ‘Grace to you and peace from God’ we translate ‘grace’ as kabarakati ‘blessing’ (e.g. Gal 1:3). In many places we use kataano lalo ‘goodness of heart’ (e.g. Gal 1:15 ‘because of the goodness of his heart God chose me’) as well as the loan rahamati ‘mercy’ (e.g. ‘you have-turned-your-backs-on the mercy of God’ for ‘you have fallen away from grace’; Gal 5:4). In one case where the unmerited nature of ‘grace’ is in focus, we have also employed katohai ‘a free gift’ (typically food offered to one’s neighbo-1urs) in the same verse. ‘The reason-you-have-been-saved is because of the goodness of God’s heart (Greek charis, Muna kataano lalo), going-through your belief in Kristus. That salvation is not the result of your own work, but really a free-gift (Greek dooron ‘gift’; Muna katohai) of God.’ (Eph 2:8).
In Burmese, it is translated with the Buddhist term kyeh’jooh’tau (ကျေးဇူးတော်). LaSeng Dingrin (in Missiology 37/4, 2009, p. 485ff.) explains: “As regards the Christian term ‘grace,’ Judson [the first translator of the Bible into Burmese] could not have brought the Burmese Buddhists the good news about the redeeming work of Jesus Christ and its benefits (i.e., forgiveness and salvation), without employing the Burmese Buddhist term kyeh’jooh’tau (‘grace’). Deriving from Palikataññuta (“gratefulness”), kyeh’jooh’tau denotes ‘good deeds for others or benefits,’ which occur among humans. (…) When Christianized, kyeh’jooh’tau also refers to the atoning work of Jesus and its benefits, and can occur between humans and God. The word kyeh’jooh’tau looks very Burmese Buddhist, but it is Christian, too, and conveys the core of the Christian proclamation. Furthermore, kyeh’jooh’tau itself shows that translatability of Christianity cannot be imagined without reliance on Buddhism.” (See also the Burmese entry for God)
In American Sign Language it is translated with a sign that combines “compassion” and “giving out.” (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“Grace” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
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 inclusive form (including the addressee).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Chicahuaxtla Triqui: “cover over” (a figure of speech which is also employed in Hebrew, but which in many languages is not acceptable, because it implies “hiding” or “concealment”)
Warao: “not being concerned with him clean your obonja.” Obonja 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.)
Martu Wangka: “throw out badness” (source: Carl Gross)
Kyaka: “burn the jaw bones” — This goes back to the pre-Christian custom of hanging the jaw bones of murdered relatives on ones door frame until the time of revenge. Christians symbolically burned those bones to show forgiveness which in turn became the word for “forgiveness” (source: Eugene Nida, according to this blog )
Koonzime: “remove the bad deed-counters” (“The Koonzime lay out the deeds symbolically — usually strips of banana leaf — and rehearse their grievances with the person addressed.”) (Source: Keith and Mary Beavon in Notes on Translation 3/1996, p. 16)
Ngbaka: ele: “forgive and forget” (Margaret Hill [in Holzhausen & Ridere 2010, p. 8f.] recalls that originally there were two different words used in Ngbaka, one for God (ɛlɛ) and one for people (mbɔkɔ — excuse something) since it was felt that people might well forgive but, unlike God, can’t forget. See also this lectionary in The Christian Century.
Amahuaca: “erase” / “smooth over” (“It was an expression the people used for smoothing over dirt when marks or drawings had been made in it. It meant wiping off dust in which marks had been made, or wiping off writing on the blackboard. To wipe off the slate, to erase, to take completely away — it has a very wide meaning and applies very well to God’s wiping away sins, removing them from the record, taking them away.”) (Source: Robert Russel, quoted in Walls / Bennett 1959, p. 193)
Gonja / Dangme: “lend / loan” (in the words of one Dangme scholar: “When you sin and you are forgiven, you forget that you have been forgiven, and continue to sin. But when you see the forgiveness as a debt/loan which you will pay for, you do not continue to sin, else you have more debts to pay” — quoted in Jonathan E.T. Kuwornu-Adjaottor in Ibadan Journal of Religious Studies 17/2 2010, p. 67ff. )
Kwere: kulekelela, meaning literally “to allow for.” Derived from the root leka which means “to leave.” In other words, forgiveness is leaving behind the offense in relationship to the person. It is also used in contexts of setting someone free. (Source: Megan Barton)
Merina Malagasy: mamela or “leave / let go (of sin / mistakes)” (source: Brigitte Rabarijaona)
Following are a number of back-translations of Ephesians 1:7:
Uma: “From the blood of the death of Yesus and from our connection with him, God redeemed us, he forgave our sins from his grace that is very big.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Because of the death of Almasi we (incl.) are set free, that means God has forgiven our (incl.) sins. Really very great is God’s love and mercy towards us (incl.).” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “For because of the fact that His kindness to us is very great, He set us free from punishment by means of the shedding of blood when Christ allowed Himself to be killed. And He forgave our (incl.) sins.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Because through the blood of that Child of his, we are set-free, it wants to say (henceforth meaning to say), our sins are forgiven. We enjoy/gain all these-things because of God’s exceeding mercy/grace” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “For because of the blood which this Jesus shed (lit.caused-to-drip), we are free now from the punishment by God because of our sins. They have now all been forgiven to us. There is really no comparison to this grace/mercy of his” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Because of the grace of God, the Son of God died in order to save us and he forgave our sins.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
God transcends gender, but most languages are limited to grammatical gender expressed in pronouns. In the case of English, this is traditionally confined to “he” (or in the forms “his,” “him,” and “himself”), “she” (and “her,” “hers,” and “herself”), and “it” (and “its” and “itself”).
Modern Mandarin Chinese, however, offers another possibility. Here, the third-person singular pronoun is always pronounced the same (tā), but it is written differently according to its gender (他 is “he,” 她 is “she,” and 它/牠 is “it” and their respective derivative forms). In each of these characters, the first (or upper) part defines the gender (man, woman, or thing/animal), while the second element gives the clue to its pronunciation.
In 1930, after a full century with dozens of Chinese translations, Bible translator Wang Yuande (王元德) coined a new “godly” pronoun: 祂. Chinese readers immediately knew how to pronounce it: tā. But they also recognized that the first part of that character, signifying something spiritual, clarified that each person of the Trinity has no gender aside from being God.
While the most important Protestant and Catholic Chinese versions respectively have opted not to use 祂, some Bible translations do and it is widely used in hymnals and other Christian materials. Among the translations that use 祂 to refer to “God” were early versions of Lü Zhenzhong’s (呂振中) version (New Testament: 1946, complete Bible: 1970). R.P. Kramers (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 152ff. ) explains why later versions of Lü’s translation did not continue with this practice: “This new way of writing ‘He,’ however, has created a minor problem of its own: must this polite form be used whenever Jesus is referred to? Lü follows the rule that, wherever Jesus is referred to as a human being, the normal tā (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential tā (祂) is used.”
In that system one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and one for natural elements, non-liquid masses, and some spiritual entities (one other is used for large animals and another one for miscellaneous items). While in these languages the pronoun for spiritual entities used to be employed when referring to God, this has changed into the use of the human pronoun.
Lynell Zogbo (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 401ff. ) explains in the following way: “From informal discussions with young Christians especially, it would appear that, at least for some people, the experience and/or concepts of Christianity are affecting the choice of pronoun for God. Some people explain that God is no longer ‘far away,’ but is somehow tangible and personal. For these speakers God has shifted over into the human category.”
In Kouya, God (the Father) and Jesus are referred to with the human pronoun ɔ, whereas the Holy Spirit is referred to with a non-human pronoun. (Northern Grebo and Western Krahn make a similar distinction.)
Eddie Arthur, a former Kouya Bible translation consultant, says the following: “We tried to insist that this shouldn’t happen, but the Kouya team members were insistent that the human pronoun for the Spirit would not work.”
In Burmese, the pronoun ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) is used either as 2nd person (you) or 3rd person (he, him, his) reference. “This term clearly has its root in the religious language in Burmese. No ordinary persons are addressed or known by this pronoun because it is reserved for Buddhist monks, famous religious teachers, and in the case of Christianity, the Trinity.” (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff. )
In Thai, the pronoun phra`ong (พระองค์) is used, a gender-neutral pronoun which must refer to a previously introduced royal or divine being. Similarly, in Northern Khmer, which is spoken in Thailand, “an honorific divine pronoun” is used for the pronoun referring to the persons of the Trinity (source: David Thomas in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 445 ). In Urak Lawoi’, another language spoken in Thailand, the translation often uses tuhat (ตูฮัด) — “God” — ”as a divine pronoun where Thai has phra’ong even though it’s actually a noun.” (Source for Thai and Urak Lawoi’: Stephen Pattemore)
The English “Contemporary Torah” addresses the question of God and gendered pronouns by mostly avoiding pronouns in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (unless God is referred to as “lord,” “father,” “king,” or “warrior”). It does that by either using passive constructs (“He gave us” vs. “we were given”), by using the adjective “divine” or by using “God” rather than a pronoun.
Some Protestant and Orthodox English Bibles use a referential capitalized spelling when referring to the persons of the Trinity with “He,” “His,” “Him,” or “Himself.” This includes for instance the New American Standard Bible or The Orthodox New Testament, but most translations do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In both languages this follows the language usage according to the Qur’an, which in turn predicts that usage (see Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 442ff. and The Bible Translator 1997, p. 433ff. ).
Verse 7 in Greek begins with a relative clause, “in whom we have the redemption” (Hdb|fig:Table_EPH1-3.jpg). It is quite easy and natural to make a break here and start a new sentence. “In whom” refers to “the Beloved” of verse 6 and names him as the one who achieves our redemption; the “we” is all-inclusive, referring to all believers.
The Greek “through his blood” indicates the way in which redemption was achieved. “Blood” here is a way of speaking of Christ’s death on the cross, which is seen as the voluntary sacrifice of his life to God as an offering to achieve the forgiveness of the sins of mankind. In the first three editions of the Good News Translation New Testament the Greek term “blood” was translated death, which was criticized by persons who felt that the atoning work of Christ was being belittled. In many contexts the Greek word for “blood” means “death,” for it is a figurative substitute for the term “death.” But in speaking of “the blood of Jesus Christ” there is something more than merely “death,” since in this type of context “blood” reflects the sacrificial system of the Old Testament to which Christ’s death is constantly related in New Testament passages. Accordingly, Good News Translation now uses the phrase “sacrificial death” as an attempt to communicate fully the significant aspects of “blood” in Greek. Twentieth Century New Testament, New English Bible, have the more traditional phrase “the shedding of his blood,” an expression preferred by many translators because it allows them to keep the biblical symbol of blood and yet make clear in this context that it is the death of Christ on the cross that is being talked about. Translator’s New Testament has simply “Christ’s death” while Barclay has “the sacrifice of his life.” Caragounis (page 91, footnote 64) quotes Behm: “The interest of the New Testament is not in the material blood of Christ, but in His shed blood as the life violently taken from Him. Like the cross … the ‘blood of Christ’ is simply another and even more graphic phrase for the death of Christ in its soteriological significance.”
We are set free translates a Greek noun meaning “redemption” (Revised Standard Version); the word appears further in 1.14; 4.30; Romans 3.24; 8.23; Colossians 1.14. The Greek word has here no idea in it, as has been sometimes suggested, of a ransom paid to someone for the freeing of the captive; it stresses the result of the action of liberation. Instead of the present tense we are set free (or “we are free”), some translations prefer the past tense, “we have been set free.”
That is, our sins are forgiven: this redemption is further defined as “the forgiveness of sins.” Here the Greek word means “transgressions” (see Revised Standard Version), while in the parallel Colossians 1.14 the more general word “sins” is used. The two are synonymous and refer in a general way to disobedience to God’s will.
Some translators have wanted in all contexts to render the Greek term “redemption” as “to buy back.” There are certain passages in which such a meaning is in focus. But more often than not the term is used in the sense of “deliverance,” and in this meaning it often refers to the deliverance of the people of Israel from Egypt. It is for that reason that Good News Translation employs the phrase “are set free.” One of the difficulties involved in translating the Greek term by “to buy back” or even “to pay for” is the requirement in many languages to specify to whom such a payment is made. This would force a translator to introduce elements into a translation which would be completely contrary to the teaching of scripture. This did happen at certain times during the Middle Ages when people assumed that God in redeeming people had to make a payment to the Devil. Any and all translations which would imply this aspect of redemption are, of course, wrong and misleading.
In a number of languages the phrase “the forgiveness of sins” must be expressed as a verb phrase, either in the passive form “our sins are forgiven,” or “God has forgiven us our sins.” In some languages a very important distinction is made between the meaning of “sins” (as the actual deed) and “guilt” which is the result of sinning. In such languages what is forgiven is the guilt. The concept of forgiveness is often expressed by means of figurative language, for example, “to throw a person’s sins away” or “to throw a person’s sins behind one’s back” or “not to remember any longer a person’s sins” or “to blot out a person’s sins.” Some translators, however, have endeavored to construct expressions for forgiveness based on a literal rendering of the Hebrew term meaning literally “to cover.” But this often leads to a wrong meaning, since “to cover sins” often implies “to cover up sins,” that is to say, to keep other people from knowing about one’s sins.
Verse 7 in Greek ends with the clause “according to the wealth of his (God’s) grace” (see Hdb|fig:Table_EPH1-3.jpg; Good News TranslationHow great is the grace of God): this is the basis or standard of God’s action in redeeming us (see the similar “according to” clause in verse 5b). The genitive phrase “the wealth of his grace” is resolved into “his abundant grace,” “his immense love.” It is important to avoid a word such as “wealth” or “riches” which would refer to material possessions. Here “wealth” means that God’s grace is plentiful and abundant. It is because his grace (or, love) is so abundant that he has set us free and forgiven our sins.
Verse 8 in Greek begins with the relative clause “which he lavished on us”; this is similar to the relative clause in verse 6 “which he generously gave us.” Good News Translation has made a break at the end of verse 7a and represented the “according to…” clause by a complete sentence, an exclamation How great is the grace of God…. In some languages, however, such an expression of exclamation may be rendered as “God has indeed been good to us!” A rhetorical question may also be used, for example, “Has not God been very good to us?” Translator’s New Testament has “How abundantly rich is his grace, which he has showered upon us!” New English Bible also has a complete sentence: “Therein lies the richness of God’s free grace….” On grammatical grounds this may be contested, but in terms of essential meaning and of impact on the reader it may be defended as a faithful translation of the Greek.
In the first part of verse 8, Hdb|fig:Table_EPH1-3.jpg “lavished” translates the Greek verb “to cause to abound,” “to multiply,” which is formed from an adjective meaning “more than enough,” “beyond the usual (amount or size).” The clause which he gave to us in such large measure may be represented in some languages as “which he showed to us very much” or “which he showed to us more and more.”
Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1982. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.