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 .

witness

The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “witness” in English is translated in these ways:

  • “truly have seen” in Highland Popoluca
  • “telling the truth regarding something” in Eastern Highland Otomi
  • “know something” in Lalana Chinantec
  • “verily know something to be the truth” in San Mateo del Mar Huave
  • “we ourselves saw this” in Desano
  • “tell the truth about something” in Eastern Highland Otomi
  • “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)

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Gen 31:44)

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 translation uses the inclusive pronoun while the Adamawa Fulfulde translation uses the exclusive pronoun.

complete verse (Genesis 31:44)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Genesis 31:44:

  • Newari: “So come, now [we] will make a treaty between you and me. And as a reminder of this [lit.: in accordance with the memory of this] we will set up a rock [lit.: cause a rock to stand] here.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Perhaps (this) would-be-good, we (incl.) will-make an agreement. We (incl.) will-erect/[lit. -cause-to-stand] a remembrance stone that will-testify-to our agreement.'” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “I cannot do anything in order to keep them, so hey, we should make a peace agreement, you and I, and do something that will remind us about our agreement.'” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Genesis 31:44

Translators may notice some confusions in verses 44-54. For example, there appear to be two distinct agreements or treaties. The details of making the first one are given in verses 44-50, with the actual words in verses 49-50, where Laban warns Jacob against mistreating his daughters and against marrying other women. He calls on God as a witness. The second treaty is described in verses 51-54, with the words being given in verses 51-53; this is a nonaggression pact or agreement not to violate each others’ territory. In this treaty the heap of stones and the pillar are witnesses. A pillar and a heap of stones are also set up in verses 45 and 46; however, verse 44 speaks of only one covenant. And there are repetitions and conflicting statements in the details of the treaties as well.

Many interpret these problems as the result of these verses having been put together from different original sources. It is also possible that later copyists added words. However this may be, translators are obliged to translate the text as it stands. Nevertheless many modern versions have made adjustments within the text to help minimize the confusions. Some of these will be pointed out so that translators may see what kinds of adjustments can be made.

Verse 44 is addressed directly to Jacob, and it may be necessary to make this clear in translation. Laban’s real concern now seems to be for his own protection more than for the welfare of his daughters and grandchildren.

Come now, let us make a covenant, you and I: for Come now see 11.3. The Hebrew verb in verse 44 is different than that used in 11.3, but the idea is the same. Another way of expressing the fact that Laban is now proposing a resolution to the dispute is to say “[since I can do nothing…,] I am ready to make an agreement with you.” For make a covenant see 15.18; 26.28.

Let it be a witness between you and me: although not indicated in Revised Standard Version or Good News Translation, many interpreters hold that the Hebrew text as we have it in this passage has undergone modification. As the text stands the agreement or treaty is to serve as the witness, and Revised Standard Version expresses it that way. Good News Translation, on the other hand, understands the “pile of stones” as the witness, “to remind us of our agreement.” Good News Translation interprets verse 44 in the light of verses 48 and 52. Others believe that the witness is the LORD, but that the divine name was dropped from the text. The Septuagint adds just before our clause the words “Though no man be with us, know that God [will be a witness between you and me.]”

Translators will find versions that follow each of the possibilities above. The Handbook authors take the position that the Hebrew text as we have it is preferred in this case. This means that the covenant or treaty is the reminder of what they will agree to. However, another possibility is that of Good News Translation, which has the advantage of relating verse 44 to verses 48 and 52. Another translation that may be considered is that of Revised English Bible. That version departs from New English Bible, “let it [the agreement] stand as a witness,” and instead translates “and let there be a witness between us,” in which the nature of the witness is not given, directly or indirectly. Another translation that leaves open the nature of the witness says “and let us do something to help us keep thinking of our agreement.”

Quoted with permission from Reyburn, William D. and Fry, Euan McG. A Handbook on Genesis. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .