Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Isaiah 3:18:
Kupsabiny: “A day is coming when God shall tear off from those women of Jerusalem those beautiful leg-rings, head ornaments and necklaces,” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “That day has been coming [when] the LORD is about to take away their beautiful ornaments and decorative items. For example — ornaments, head bands, necklaces [lit.: neck chains],” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “At that time, the Lord will-take-away their jewelries from their feet, head, and neck.” (Source: Hiligaynon 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 Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme are (され) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, nozok-are-ru (除かれる) or “remove” is used.
Verses 18-23 are unusual in that they consist of a long list of nouns identifying women’s jewelry, clothing, and beauty aids. Just as God will remove every support for the people of Judah (verse 1), so he will take away all these items. Many items in the list are obscure to us today and were already obscure when the Septuagint translators rendered them. Therefore it may be helpful to place a footnote here to let readers know that the translation of some items in the list is uncertain. The list contains items that the women of Judah wore as expressions of wealth, position and beauty, so they were symbols of human pride. We do not know whether the women gained these items at the expense of the poor, so there is no reason to interpret them in that way.
This is probably an exhaustive list of anything beautiful that made the women proud. Translators should try to avoid simplifying or condensing the list unless absolutely necessary. At the same time they should beware of explaining each item with phrases that result in a long description. They should also not repeat the same item twice; for example, using the same term for “headdresses” in verse 20 and “veils” in verse 23.
In that day begins a new subsection of the prophet’s address. Here the phrase indicates that the time period for verses 18-23 is the same time as for verses 16-17. See also the comments on 2.11 and 20.
The Lord will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents: As in verse 17, Lord is the title for God, not his personal name. For the key verb take away, see the comments on Isa 3.1. The Hebrew word translated finery means “object of beauty.” It can have either a positive connotation of beauty and glory (see 4.2) or a negative one of pride and arrogance (see 10.12; 13.19). Here it has a negative connotation. In Hebrew finery is linked to all the other nouns in the list, so the finery of could be placed before each of the 21 items in the list and not just the anklets. A possible way to express this is “the Lord will take away the beauty of so many things, that of the anklets…” or “… take away so many beautiful things: the anklets….” Bible en français courant says “the Lord will deprive them of all that serves them as ornament: the ankle rings….”
Anklets were items of jewelry worn around the ankles. They were normally made of metal. New Jerusalem Bible calls them “ornamental chains,” but this rendering has no necessary connection to the ankle.
Headbands and crescents seem to be items worn on the head. New Jerusalem Bible renders headbands as “medallions,” and Revised English Bible says “discs.” Good News Translation suggests “the ornaments they wear … on their heads.” The major versions also give different translations for crescents. Some other renderings are “crescent necklaces” (New International Version) and “ornaments they wear … on their necks” (Good News Translation). For headbandsBible en français courant has a footnote saying “Or jewelry in the shape of the sun.” This probably explains why New American Bible renders headbands as “sunbursts,” which pairs nicely with crescents, the traditional shape of a half-moon.
As noted above, there is an obvious problem in identifying some of the objects in this list, and even if they are identified, it may be difficult to find equivalents in the receptor language. For these reasons some translators may wish to follow the models of Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version. These versions simply list the various parts of the body on which the items are worn. For verses 18-23 Contemporary English Version has “When that day comes, I will take away from those women all the fine jewelry they wear on their ankles, heads, necks, ears, arms, noses, fingers, and on their clothes. I will remove their veils, their belts, their perfume, their magic charms, their royal robes, and all their fancy dresses, hats, and purses.” Like Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version makes no attempt to identify each of the items in verses 18-23. While this may not be the ideal, it does recognize the problem of translating such a list. The problem is not a new one. The Septuagint translators substituted a list of common terms taken from their own cultural setting. If translators follow the Septuagint by doing this, they should use terms that fit as closely as possible with the discussion on each of these items.
Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Sterk, Jan. A Handbook on Isaiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Here Yahweh assures the people of Judah that he will destroy Assyria if they depend on him. The word sword is the keyword in this verse. It is used three times as a metaphor for the violent power that Yahweh will use to destroy Assyria. Good News Translation avoids the word sword altogether, but it loses much of the poetry.
Since the speaker changes from the prophet to Yahweh in this verse, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch indicates this by adding “says the LORD,” near the beginning. It also places quote marks around his speech in verses 8-9b. Other languages may find this helpful.
And the Assyrian shall fall by a sword, not of man: Assyria will be destroyed, but not by humans. Translators may omit the connector And, especially if they add a quote frame to indicate the LORD is speaking here. The verb fall was used in verse 3 for the destruction of those helped by Egypt. For fall by a sword, compare 13.15. This line may be rendered “The Assyrians will die by a sword not wielded/used by a human being.”
And a sword, not of man, shall devour him: This line is parallel to the previous one, emphasizing the destruction of Assyria. For the Hebrew idiom a sword … shall devour him, see the comments on 1.20. The Hebrew word for man (same one as in verse 3) differs from the one used in the previous line. No significant change in meaning is intended, but translators may reflect the variation by using slightly different renderings. This is what New Jerusalem Bible has done by using “man” and “human being.” New International Version says “man” and “mortals” (similarly Revised English Bible).
And he shall flee from the sword means the Assyrian army will try to escape destruction by the LORD’s agent.
And his young men shall be put to forced labor: This line clearly indicates that they will fail in their attempt to escape. They will be captured and made slaves. The Hebrew word for young men (literally “chosen ones”) is a technical term for young men of military age (see the comments on 9.16). In this context it may be rendered “soldiers” or “warriors.” Forced labor refers to slavery in this context. Good News Translation renders put to forced labor as “will be made slaves” (similarly Contemporary English Version, New Jerusalem Bible).
Some translation examples for this verse are:
• The LORD says,
“Assyria will fall by a sword not held by a human being,
a sword not held by a man will destroy him;
it will try to escape from this sword,
but its warriors will be captured as slaves.
• “The Assyrians will die by a sword not wielded by a human,
a sword not held by a man will kill them;
they will seek to avoid this sword,
but their soldiers will be captured and enslaved.
Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Sterk, Jan. A Handbook on Isaiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.