The Greek that is translated in English as “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood” or similar is translated in Amele as “I betrayed [yesterday’s past] a man without fault.” (Source: Tim Stirtz and Mike Cahill in Watters / de Blois 2023, p. 413)
John Roberts explains (see here ) In Amele the translator has to be alert as to when to use the appropriate degree of absolute tense. For example, in Matt 27.4 in example (17), the verbs have sinned and have betrayed are expressed as past in past in English. However, in the context of the speech utterance, Judas is reporting an event that took place the previous night. In Amele culture a ‘day’ in respect of degrees of past tense is a complete day-night cycle. The dawn is the start of a new day, i.e., a new day-night cycle. In Matt 27:1 it says ‘Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death’. Thus, assuming that they met some time early in the morning after dawn, from the Amele perspective the report by Judas in 27:4 would refer to events that happened on the previous day. The Amele translation therefore needs to be in yesterday’s past tense.”
The Greek that is translated as “betray” in English does not have an immediately corresponding term in Tado. The term that was chosen there was “sell.” (Source: Budy Karmoy in this blog post )
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 exclusive form (excluding Judas).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
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 of Matthew 27:4:
Uma: “and he said: ‘I have sinned! I sold a person who wasn’t wrong/guilty, with the result that he has been condemned to death!’ They answered him: ‘What’s that to us! [lit., What do we say!] The guilt/wrong is yours(s)!'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “He said to them, ‘I have sinned because I have betrayed a man who has no sin and-what’s-more he will soon be killed.’ They answered him, they said, ‘We don’t have anything to do with that anymore. It is your problem now.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “‘I have sinned,’ he said, ‘because the man you said that his actions were worthy of having him killed, he has no sin, and I am the one who turned him over to you.’ And they answered, ‘We have no concern with that. That’s your trouble.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “and he said, ‘I have sinned, because I betrayed a person who has no sin and here he has been condemned to die.’ ‘It makes no difference (lit. it has no evil) to us (excl.),’ they said in reply. ‘You (sing.) are the one responsible for that.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “He said, ‘I really have sinned. I have traded a person to death who has no sin.’ ‘Oh, what business is that of ours(excl.)? You are responsible,’ was their answer.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “He said: ‘I have committed a sin to deliver to you this man who is innocent, so that he will be killed,’ he said. But the priests said to Judas: ‘What you say is of no importance to us. It’s your own business.'” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
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®).
Innocent blood is a Hebrew idiom for the death of “an innocent man” (Good News Translation). Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch inverts the order of the two clauses: “An innocent man will be killed, and I have betrayed him.” In fact some translations find it natural to restructure even more radically, as they put I have sinned at the end of these clauses: “I have betrayed an innocent man who will now be put to death. This was a sin” or “A man will die because I sinned and betrayed him.”
The literal expression What is that to us? (so also New English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible) is translated “What do we care about that?” by Good News Translation. A statement may be substituted for the rhetorical question: “We don’t care about that” or “That has nothing to do with us” (Barclay).
See to it yourself is represented in Good News Translation by a form familiar to speakers of American English: “That is your business!” However, this restructuring may prove difficult for persons without a thorough knowledge of the language. It may be better to render “That is your concern” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “That’s your problem!”
Verses 4-5 seem to suggest that Judas approached the chief priests within the Temple building itself, and that this happened while they were in session. But such a supposition encounters at least two difficulties: (1) according to verse 2, the chief priests had already gone to the residence of Pilate, and (2) it is impossible that the Temple building would have been accessible to the general public. It is difficult to know precisely what Matthew had in mind, but for languages which require that the translation be specific, it is best to state that Judas threw the coins into the Temple, though not actually entering himself. This much is supported by the Greek, which does not explicitly state that Judas actually went in.
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1988. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.