become one flesh

Click here to view graphically

The Greek and Hebrew that is often translated into English as “(the two) shall become one flesh” is translated as “become just one” in Copainalá Zoque and San Mateo del Mar Huave or with existing idiomatic equivalents such as “become one blood” in Mitla Zapotec, “become the complement of each other’s spirit” in Tzeltal (source for this and above Bratcher / Nida), “become one body” in Uab Meto (source: P. Middelkoop in The Bible Translator 1952, p. 208ff. ), “tie with wife as one, so that they tie one insides” in Luang (source: Kathy and Mark Taber in Kroneman [2004], p. 539), or “become like one body-entity” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation).

In Tataltepec Chatino it is translated as “the two shall accompany each other so that they no longer seem two but are like one person,” in Choapan Zapotec as “when the man and woman live together in front of God, it is as if just one person,” and in Mezquital Otomi as “they aren’t two, it is as though they are one.” (Source: B. Moore / G. Turner in Notes on Translation 1967, p. 1ff.)

In the German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999) it is translated with bilden eine neue Sippe or “form a new clan.” They explain (p. 417): “Usually ‘become one flesh.’ This is clearly not correct from a biological point of view. In the Old Testament, ‘flesh’ in such contexts means: ‘kinship, clan, family.’ So the idea is that the man gives up his clan and forms a new clan together with the married woman.”

See also I am your bone and flesh.

serpent

The Greek that is translated as “serpent” in English is translated in Uab Meto as koko, a semi-mythical animal.

Pieter Middelkoop (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 130ff. ) explains: “In various translations [the Hebrew term] nachash is rendered by ‘serpent’, but the difficulty is that in Uab Meto there is no general word for serpent. Curiously enough they use a general word, kauna, including all kinds of insects, iguana, lizards and serpents. But the python is never called kauna: it has its own name in Uab Meto, i.e. liuksain. But Atoni people [the groups that speaks Uab Meto] never mention its name because it is taboo and so circumscribe it as, Uis meto, ‘Lord of the dry land.’ And whereas lizards, etc. are also called kauna, the crocodile is excepted, never being called kauna. Its name, besimnasi, is also taboo and therefore it is indicated by the title, Uis Oe, that means ‘Lord of the water.’

“Each kind of serpent is indicated by its own name, preceded by the word kauna, so, for instance, kauna umeke is a kind of serpent, the principal food of which are mice, and therefore it is also called kaunifo, ’mice serpent’; and kaun usau, a kind of poisonous viper. Consequently it is impossible to render serpent’ in Uab Meto with kauna because it covers too wide an area of very different species. (…)

“Now in Timor there is a kind of semi-mythical animal, i.e. koko. There are three kinds of koko:

  1. koko manu with legs and wings, a kind of flying lizard;
  2. koko poli (koko belu), a kind of springing reptile using its tail to spring;
  3. koko kauna, a very big kind; some old Atonis told me that it is nearly as big as a python, but different in hue. However, the explanations concerning its size differ rather much, but anyhow the koko is a mythical figure in the stories, that can speak and converse with man.

“(…) One cannot say that it is only a mythical figure, because the Atonis say that their ancestors have seen it and had intercourse with it. Nowadays, when one asks if anybody has seen it, the general reply is in the negative. As an exception, one may meet someone who says that he has.

“It is quite clear that the koko in the belief of the Atonis is of the same species as the nachash in the Scripture.”

In the 1900 Kalaallisut (Greenlandic) translation (a newer version was published in 2000) it was translated as pulateriârssuk or “bade earthworm.” “The translation employs a descriptive Greenlandic word, pulateriârssuk (modern pulateriaarsuk) ‘snake,’ which is based on the noun pulateriaĸ (modern pulateriaq) ‘earthworm’ (itself derived from the verb pulavoĸ [modern pulavoq] ‘creep, crawl’) combined with the suffix –arssuk (modern –arsuk), meaning ‘bad,’ that is, ‘bad earthworm.’ This term would have easily created a frame of reference for the target audience irrespective of whether they were familiar with snakes.” (Source: Lily Kahn & Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi in The Bible Translator 2019, p. 125ff.)

For some problems with the translation of nachash or “serpent,” see John Roberts’ Illustrating han-nāḥāš in the Garden of Eden .

See also birds or four-footed animals or reptiles, serpent, and snake.

Christ, Messiah

Click here to view graphically

The Greek Christos (Χρηστός) is typically transliterated when it appears together with Iésous (Ἰησοῦς) (Jesus). In English the transliteration is the Anglicized “Christ,” whereas in many other languages it is based on the Greek or Latin as “Kristus,” “Cristo,” or similar.

When used as a descriptive term in the New Testament — as it’s typically done in the gospels (with the possible exceptions of for instance John 1:17 and 17:3) — Christos is seen as the Greek translation of the Hebrew mashiaḥ (המשיח‎) (“anointed”). Accordingly, a transliteration of mashiaḥ is used, either as “Messiah” or based on the Greek or Latin as a form of “Messias.”

This transliteration is also used in the two instances where the Greek term Μεσσίας (Messias) is used in John 1:41 and 4:25.

In some languages and some translations, the term “Messiah” is supplemented with an explanation. Such as in the German Gute Nachricht with “the Messiah, the promised savior” (Wir haben den Messias gefunden, den versprochenen Retter) or in Muna with “Messiah, the Saving King” (Mesias, Omputo Fosalamatino) (source: René van den Berg).

In predominantly Muslim areas or for Bible translations for a Muslim target group, Christos is usually transliterated from the Arabic al-Masih (ٱلْمَسِيحِ) — “Messiah.” In most cases, this practice corresponds with languages that also use a form of the Arabic Isa (عيسى) for Jesus (see Jesus). There are some exceptions, though, including modern translations in Arabic which use Yasua (يَسُوعَ) (coming from the Aramaic Yēšūa’) alongside a transliteration of al-Masih, Hausa which uses Yesu but Almahisu, and some Fula languages (Adamawa Fulfulde, Nigerian Fulfulde, and Central-Eastern Niger Fulfulde) which also use a form of Iésous (Yeesu) but Almasiihu (or Almasiifu) for Christos.

In Indonesian, while most Bible translations had already used Yesus Kristus rather than Isa al Masih, three public holidays used to be described using the term Isa Al Masih. From 2024 on, the government is using Yesus Kristus in those holiday names instead (see this article in Christianity Today ).

Other solutions that are used by a number of languages include these:

  • Dobel: “The important one that God had appointed to come” (source: Jock Hughes)
  • Noongar: Keny Mammarap or “The One Man” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Mairasi: “King of not dying for life all mashed out infinitely” (for “mashed out,” see salvation; source: Lloyd Peckham)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “One chosen by God to rule mankind” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Bacama: Ma Pwa a Ngɨltən: “The one God has chosen” (source: David Frank in this blog post )
  • Binumarien: Anutuna: originally a term that was used for a man that was blessed by elders for a task by the laying on of hands (source: Desmond Oatridges, Holzhausen 1991, p. 49f.)
  • Noongar: Keny Boolanga-Yira Waangki-Koorliny: “One God is Sending” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Uab Meto: Neno Anan: “Son of heaven” P. Middelkoop explains: “The idea of heavenly power bestowed on a Timorese king is rendered in the title Neno Anan. It is based on the historical fact that chiefs in general came from overseas and they who come thence are believed to have come down from heaven, from the land beyond the sea, that means the sphere of God and the ghosts of the dead. The symbolical act of anointing has been made subservient to the revelation of an eternal truth and when the term Neno Anan is used as a translation thereof, it also is made subservient to a new revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The very fact that Jesus came from heaven makes this translation hit the mark.” (Source: P. Middelkoop in The Bible Translator 1953, p. 183ff. )

In Finnish Sign Language both “Christ” and “Messiah” are translated with a sign signifying “king.” (Source: Tarja Sandholm)


“Christ / Messiah” in Finnish Sign Language (source )

Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient Greek Septuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew mashiah was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments (click or tap here to read more):

“Another important word in the New Testament that comes from the Septuagint is christos, ‘Christ.’ Christ is not part of the name of the man from Nazareth, as if ‘the Christs’ were written above the door of his family home. Rather, ‘Christ’ is an explicitly messianic title used by the writers of the New Testament who have learned this word from the Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew mashiach, ‘anointed,’ which itself is often rendered in English as ‘Messiah.’ To be sure, one detects a messianic intent on the part of the Septuagint translator in some places. Amos 4:13 may have been one of these. In the Hebrew Bible, God ‘reveals his thoughts to mortals,’ but the Septuagint has ‘announcing his anointed to humans.’ A fine distinction must be made, however, between theology that was intended by the Septuagint translators and that developed by later Christian writers. In Amos 4:13 it is merely possible we have a messianic reading, but it is unquestionably the case that the New Testament writers exploit the Septuagint’s use of christos, in Amos and elsewhere, to messianic ends.”

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Christ .

baptism, baptize

Click here to view graphically

About the translation of the Greek term that is usually transliterated with the terms “baptism” or “baptize” in English (for other English translations see below), Bratcher / Nida (1961) say this (click or tap for details):

“[It] has given rise not only to an immense amount of discussion in terms of its meaning within the Judaeo-Christian historical context, but also continues to introduce serious problems for translators today. In many instances the recommendation has been to transliterate, i.e. employing some indigenous equivalent of the sounds of the word in some more prestigious language spoken in the region, e.g. English, French, Spanish, or Portuguese. Though this solution tends to remove some theological controversies, it does not completely satisfy everyone, for not only does it avoid the problem of the mode of baptism, but it leaves the Scriptures with a zero word. Unfortunately, many of the controversies over the indigenous equivalent of baptism arise because of a false evaluation of a word’s so-called etymology. For example, in Yucateco the word for baptism means literally ‘to enter the water’, but this term is used freely by both Presbyterians and Roman Catholics, even though it might appear to be strictly ‘Baptist nomenclature.’ Similarly, in Kekchí, an even ‘stronger’ term ‘to put under the water’ is employed by Nazarenes and Roman Catholics. Obviously the meanings of these Yucateco and Kekchí words are not derivable from their literal significance but from the fact that they now designate a particular kind of Christian rite. To insist on changing such a well-established usage (and one to which immersionists could certainly not object) would seem quite unwarranted. The situation may, on the other hand, be reversed. There are instances in which immersionists are quite happy to use a term which though it means literally ‘to put water on the head’ [see below for the translations in Northern Emberá and Ewe] has actually lost this etymological value and refers simply to the rite itself, regardless of the way in which it is performed. A translator should not, however, employ an already existing expression or construct a new phrase which will in its evident meaning rule out any major Christian constituency.

“There are, of course, a number of instances in which traditional terms for ‘baptism’ need modification. In some situations the word may mean only ‘to give a new name to’ (one aspect of christening) or ‘to be one who lights’ (referring to a custom in some traditions of lighting a candle at the time of baptism). However, in order to reproduce the core of significant meaning of the original Biblical term, it is important to explore the entire range of indigenous usage in order that whatever term is chosen may have at least some measure of cultural relevance. In Navajo (Dinė), for example, there were four principal possibilities of choice: (1) borrowing some transliterated form of the English word, (2) constructing a phrase meaning ‘to touch with water’ (an expression which would have been acceptable with some groups in the field, but not with others), (3) using a phrase meaning ‘ceremonial washing’ (but this expression seemed to be too closely related to indigenous practices in healing ceremonies), and (4) devising an expression meaning ‘to dedicate (or consecrate) by water’, without specifying the amount of water employed. This last alternative was chosen as the most meaningful and the best basis for metaphorical extension and teaching.

“On the other hand, it would be wrong to think that the meaning of ‘washing’ must be rejected in all languages. For example, it is quite appropriate in Kpelle culture, since it ties in with male puberty rites, and in the San Blas Kuna society, since washing is a very important aspect of female puberty ceremonies, in some translations ‘water’ is introduced into the expression for baptism, but the quantity and means of administrating it are left quite ambiguous, e.g. ‘to get (take, receive) water’ (Tzeltal). Toraja-Sa’dan, Pamona and Batak Toba render the verb ‘to pour water over, give a bath’.” (Source: Bratcher / Nida)

Other examples of translation include:

  • Javanese, Indonesian and many others: transliterated forms of the Greek “baptizo”
  • Pamona, Wejewa: “to bathe, wash with water”
  • Sundanese: “to apply water to”
  • Padoe: “to make one wet with water”
  • Batak Simalungun: “to wash with a little bit of water” (“used in speaking of a ceremony in which very small children are ceremonially cleansed”)
  • Kambera: “to dip into”
  • Balinese: ngelukat (a Balinese initiation ceremony in which persons were sprinkled with consecrated water) (source for this and above: Biblical Terms in The Bible Translator 1952, p. 225ff. )
  • Maan: “put in water” (source: Don Slager)
  • Mairasi: fat jaenggom; “water washing” (“baptize with the Holy Spirit”: “wash with the Holy Spirit”) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
  • Kwara’ae: “holy wash” (traditional church term for baptism) (source: Carl Gross)
  • Shipibo-Conibo: “to wash” (Catholic: “to name;” Seventh Day Adventists: “to bathe”) (source: James Lauriault in The Bible Translator 1951, p. 56ff. )
  • Northern Emberá: “head-poured” (source: Loewen 1980, p. 107)
  • Ewe: “put God’s water on one’s head”
  • Dangme (1999 edition) / Ga (2006 edition): “pray for one” (in Matthew 28:19)
  • Akan: “throw water at one” (source for this and two above: Jonathan E.T. Kuwornu-Adjaottor in HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 2025 )
  • Muna: kadiu sarani “Christian bathing” (source: René von den Berg)
  • Gonja: “bath of God”
  • Konkomba: “put them deep in the water” (source for this and one above: Jonathan E.T. Kuwornu-Adjaottor in HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 2025 )
  • Agarabi: “get water” (“being baptized”); “give water” (“baptizing”)
  • Safeyoka: “immerse in water”
  • Yagaria: “gospel water” (bono’ nina) for “baptism” and “wash (or: rub) with gospel water” (bono’ ni’ folo-) for “baptize” (source for this and two above: Renck 1990, p. 84; 115)
  • Halh Mongolian: argon ochial (“holy washing”) (“The people in Mongolia are strictly religious and understand the meaning very well. They are familiar with the idea of water being used as a symbol of a new life and having received ‘holy washing’ means to have entered into a new sphere of life.”) (Source: A. Marthinson in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 74ff. ) (Note: In more recent Mongolian translations a transliteration of baptizo is used instead)
  • Yatzachi Zapotec: (Spanish loan word and transliteration of the Greek term) bautizar (click or tap for details):

    “The Yatzachi Zapotec know the practice of baptism and have a word to express it. There would thus seem to be no problem involved. Unfortunately, however, the word for ‘baptize’ is a compound, one part being a word nowhere else used and the other part being the word for ‘water.’ Perhaps ‘water-baptize’ is the closest equivalent in English. For most contexts this presents no problem, but if the word is used in Mark 1:8, it would say, ‘He will water-baptize you with the Holy Ghost.’ In Zapotec the idea is unintelligible. To meet the problem, the Spanish word ‘bautizar’ was introduced at this point though the Zapotec word is ordinarily used. The disadvantages of this substitution are obvious, but no better solution was found.” (Source: Otis M. Leal in The Bible Translator 1951, p. 164ff.

  • Uab Meto: antam oe (“to enter into the water”) (click or tap for details):

    “Formerly in Uab Meto the word used for ’baptism’ was ‘nasrami’ which actually came by way of Arabic from ‘Nazarene.’ Its meaning was ‘to make a Christian’ and the idea was that the one who baptized actually made Christians. Such an expression was obviously inadequate. We have used for ‘baptize’ the phrase in ‘antam oe’ which means ‘to enter into the water.’ This phrase can be used for sprinkling, for water is used as a symbol of the new life, and being baptized means for the Uab Meto to enter into a new sphere of life. Baptism is so frequently spoken of in connection with the giving of the Holy Spirit that the proper associations have arisen in the thinking of the people.” (Source: P. Middelkoop in The Bible Translator 1952 p. 165ff. )

  • Mandarin Chinese: Catholic: 洗 xǐ (“washing”); non-Baptist Protestant 聖洗 shèngxǐ (“holy washing”); Baptist: 浸洗 jìnxǐ (“immerse and wash”) (In the history of Chinese Bible translation the translation of the Greek baptizo was a point of great contention, so much so that in the 19th Century Baptists had a completely different set of Bible translations and even today are using different editions with the different term of the same versions that other Protestants use.) (Source: Zetzsche 2008)
  • Many Germanic languages use a term that originally means “dip” or “make deep”: German: Taufe, Danish: dåb Swedish: dop, Norwegian: dåp, Dutch: doop, Faroese: dópur; and so do Creole languages with a strong Dutch influence, such as Saramaccan, Sranan Tongo, or Eastern Maroon Creole: dopu
    • The German das Buch translation by Roland Werner (publ. 2009-2022) uses a variety of translations, including “immersed (in water)” (eintauchen or untertauchen) but also the traditional German term for “baptism (Taufe)” or in the combination “immersed in baptism”

The disagreement about whether the translation of the Greek baptizo needed to include “immersion” not only caused conflict in China, it also led to splits — and different translations — in English-speaking countries: “The influential British and Foreign Bible Society had been a major supporter of the [Baptist] Serampore mission, but it finally severed its support in 1836 because of the Baptist interpretation of the Bible translations produced there. This led to the formation of the separate Baptist Bible Translation Society in Great Britain in 1840. Almost concurrently, in 1837, the American and Foreign Bible Society was founded in the United States as an offspring of the American Bible Society, over a controversy about a Baptist Bengali Bible translation. The American and Foreign Bible Society itself experienced another split in 1850, when a sub-group rejected the transliteration of baptizo in the English Bible and formed the American Bible Union, which published its own English New Testament in 1862/63 that used the term immerse instead of “baptize” (see here ). (Source: Zetzsche 2008)

See also baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.

Click or tap here to see a short video clip showing how baptisms were done in biblical times (source: Bible Lands 2012)

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Baptism in Early Christianity .