sin

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. )
  • Kaingang: “break God’s word”
  • 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.”

In Warao it is translated as “bad obojona.” Obojona 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.

Martin Ehrensvärd, one of the translators for the Danish Bibelen 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. )

See also sinner.

Translation commentary on Sirach 13:24

Some versions take this verse to be the beginning of a new section and/or paragraph/stanza (Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New English Bible), but others, whom we think are right, take it as the concluding statement in this section concerning rich and poor people (Contemporary English Version).

Riches are good if they are free from sin: Traditional wisdom in Israel held that being rich was a sign of God’s favor, but ben Sira takes the more skeptical view that rich people are automatically suspect. He does not condemn rich people outright; he allows that riches can be good, but only if they are not acquired by sinful means. Good News Translation does well here with “There is nothing wrong with being rich if you haven’t sinned to get that way.” Contemporary English Version keeps the poetic form with:

• It’s good to have wealth
if you got it honestly.

And poverty is evil in the opinion of the ungodly: Riches might be evil, something to be ashamed of, if the wealth was acquired by sinful means. Poverty, on the other hand, is not evil, it is nothing to be ashamed of. People do not live a sinful life with the purpose of becoming poor. Only ungodly people think poverty is evidence of sin. Translators must take care here. Of course poverty is “an evil,” in the sense of being a social wrong, in everyone’s eyes—not just the ungodly. It is not a condition to be desired. What ben Sira is saying is that the ungodly consider poverty to be evil in the sense of sinful—that if you are poor it is your own fault, punishment for your sin. A possible alternative model here is “But don’t be like people who don’t worship [or, serve] God, who think that being poor shows that you are a sinner” or “… who think that if you are poor you are a sinner.”

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Sirach. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.