The Greek in John 19:5 that is translated in English as “Here is the man” or “Behold the man” was translated in the Latin Vulgate translation of the 4th century as ecce homo.
“Ecce homo” has become to be known as an important sub-genre of Western Christian art of the 15th through the 17th century that shows the suffering Christ and again in the 20th century depicting images of human suffering in war and the holocaust.
It also is the title of Friedrich Nietzsche’s autobiography (publ. 1908).
The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “morning star” or similar in English is translated in Dan as “the moon’s lovely wife.” (Source: Don Slager)
In Isaiah 14:12, the Latin Vulgate and, following that, the English Douay-Rheims and King James Version (Authorised Version) have translated this as Lucifer, originally meaning “light bearer. In Spanish translation it is either translated as Lucero (“morning star”) or Lucifer.
The Greek word that mean both “wind” and “spirit” (pneuma) in English allows for a number of word plays in the text of the New Testament, such as in John 3:8 and Acts 2:2 vs. Acts 2:4 (note that in the case of the example in Acts 2, two different words are used in Greek — pnoé and pneuma — but both come from the same root word).
Languages that have been able to maintain the word play — and, in the case of Acts 2 — strengthen it:
Another meaning of pnoé and pneuma in Acts 2 is “breath.” Which leads Iver Larsen to explain another translation solution: “I have been wondering why English versions translate the Greek word for breath pnoé with wind in Acts 2:2. The only other instance is in Acts 17:25: “Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath” (here and below New International Version). The verb pnéó means ‘blow’ and can be used for both a wind blowing and a puff of air from a person breathing on something or someone. Acts 2:2 is related to John 20:22: ‘And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.” A different verb is used, but semantically similar. I consider this as a foreshadowing or promise of Acts 2:2, so a connection would be nice to have. In Acts 2:2 I take the one breathing mightily on the disciples to be the resurrected Christ. Only after his resurrection could Jesus release the full power of the Spirit to the disciples. These verses are also connected to Genesis 2:7: ‘God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath (Septuagint: pnoé) of life.’ In Danish there is a close connection between “spirit” (ånd) and breath/breathe (ånde). So, in Acts 2:2 we [in The Bible in Everyday Danish, 2022] use the word ‘åndepust‘ which I cannot translate properly into English, but something like ‘puff of breath/spirit.'”
The 1985 French translation by Chouraqui, which uses souffle sacré or “sacred breath” for Holy Spirit, likewise uses souffle or “breath” in Acts 2:2 (source: Laurence Belling).
The Greek word that mean both (the organ) “tongue” and “language” (glossa) allows for a word play in Acts 2. While English still has some traces of “tongue” also being used as “language” (such as in “mother tongue“) it is generally considered archaic in that use, although a number of modern English Bible translations (New International Version, Christian Standard Bible, English Standard Version) maintain “tongue” as the word for “language” in Acts 2:4.
Other languages have a more natural match between the words for “tongue” and “language”:
The Hebrew in Ezekiel 9:4 and Ezekiel 9:6 that is translated as “mark” or “sign” in Protestant English Bibles was translated in the Latin Vulgate translation as signa thau or “signs of Thau.” The Hebrew had used tav (תָּו) which means “mark” or “sign,” but was interpreted here as strictly referring to tav (taw) (ת), the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet.
This is a tradition that Catholic Bibles, for into the 1940s which the Vulgate was the source version, have maintained until the present day. While the 16th century English Dhouay-Rheims version translated this directly as mark Thau, later versions either translated this as “X” (New American Bible, including its Revised Edition), but were more commonly using cross (Knox, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Catholic Bible, Christian Community Bible). In a footnote it usually says something like this: “Literally, ‘with a tau.’ This was the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and in the old script a cross was the symbol for it.”
Indeed, this is what tav looked like historically:
Source: Wikipedia
Protestant Bibles in English, with the exception of the recent Evangelical Heritage Version (2019), all use a form of “mark.”
Other languages have the same tradition. The French Catholic La Bible de Jérusalem uses croix, the Mandarin Chinese Sigao translation says 一個十字記號 (yīge shízì jìhào) or “a mark in the sign of a cross,” the Portuguese Bíblia Ave Maria uses cruz, the Polish Biblia Tysiąclecia uses Taw (and mentions in a footnote that taw used to be written in the form of a cross), the German EinheitsübersetzUng has Taw as well, and the Spanish El Libro del Pueblo de Dios has “T.”
This last translation (“T”) also found its way into a series of stained glass window from the Three choir windows in the Marienkirche, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany, of the 14th century (note the “T” in the antichrist’s halo as well as on the forehead on his followers):
Source: Das Antichristfenster by Ludger Каup, 2010
Incidentally, the German word for devil is “Teufel” (in the spelling “tiuvel” in the 14th century), which likely helped the choice of the “T” for the mark.
See also other stained glass windows from the Marienkirche in Frankfurt.
One of the more well-known Bible translation stories is the Latin translation in the Vulgate (4th century by St. Jerome of Stridon) that supposedly creates a pun with the translation of “evil” in the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (translated in the Vulgate as lignumque scientiae boni et mali) and the fruit that is mentioned in Genesis 3:3, 3:6 and 3:12. According to the story, the Hebrew word that is translated as “fruit” in English was translated as mālum (“apple”), thus creating a pun with the Latin word malum which is used in the form mali in the translation for the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (see above). This in turn, according to the story, created the connection between the “forbidden fruit” and the apple in art history, anatomical terminology (“Adam’s apple” and similar expressions in many European languages for the laryngeal prominence) and the public imagination.
Alas, this turns out to be an urban myth. The Vulgate (as well as the older Vetus Latina) both use frūctus (“fruit”) in Genesis 3 for peri (פְרִי), the Hebrew word for fruit. While it’s possible that the use of malum in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was implicitly understood as pointing to an apple, it’s not likely since there is a marked difference in pronunciation: /ˈmaː.lum/ (“apple”) vs. /ˈma.lum/ (“evil”). Maybe it’s more likely that the apple was the likely choice in the European imagination because of its prominence as were grapes, figs, pomegranates, or etrogs in the Jewish imagination.
With contributions by Seppo Sipilä, Reinier de Blois, and Harry Harm.
In Low German “fruit” is translated as Appeln or “apples” in Genesis 3:3 and 3:6 (translation by Johannes Jessen, publ. 1937, republ. 2006).
The Hebrew that is translated as “ornamented robe” or similar in English is translated in Kim as mwaɗak or “multi-colored (robe),” following the traditional translation (Greek Septuagint: χιτῶνα ποικίλον; Latin Vulgate: tunicam polymitam; English King James/Authorised Version: coat of many colours; German Luther translation: bunter Rock etc.)
In Gbaya, the pattern of the robe is emphasized with ŋunyuŋ, an ideophone that refers to anything that is spotted, speckled, or marbled. Ideophones are a class of sound symbolic words expressing human sensation that are used as literary devices in many African languages. (Source: Philip Noss)
Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Joseph and His Clothing .
The Hebrew in Isaiah 53:4 that is translated as “stricken” or similar in many English translations was translated by the Latin Vulgate translation as quasi leprosum or “like a leper.” Most, if not all, Catholic translations into the 1950s used the Vulgate as their source text and therefore followed this translation — see the English Catholic Douay-Rheims version: we have thought him as it were a leper.
The translation was likely chosen because in other cases when the same Hebrew word is used, leprosy was implied.
In the middle ages this was interpreted as meaning that Jesus in fact had leprosy and that having leprosy was not a curse but a “Holy Disease.” (Source: Yancey 1995, p. 172f.)
See also leprosy / leprous
