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.”
The Hebrew Genesis 2:24 that is translated as “a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife” or similar in English is translated in Kim in a similar manner but equipped with a footnote. Andy Warren-Rothlin explains: “This is not a prediction of something that will happen in the future (not even the future from the point of view of the writer), but rather a description of the habits at the time and in the culture of the writer. The problem is that this is not the habit of the Kims. It takes a footnote to explain that in the writer’s day, it was the custom of Jews to leave their father’s house to get married, and that they based their culture on this story of creation.”
“In Papiamentu the most natural order of the collocation ‘father and mother’ is mama i tata (‘mother and father’). This probably reflects the matriarchal or matrilineal nature of the Curaçaon society, and in fact, of the whole region. The mother (grandmother, aunt, great-aunt) plays a pivotal role in the web of family and social relations. Even when both parents are still alive and have a good marriage, the children will usually speak not of ‘my father’s house,’ but always of ‘my mother’s house.’
“When discussing the sensitivities surrounding the translation of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16) and the many references to them in the NT, this difference between the target language and the source language emerged. It had been taken for granted in other texts. The discussion in the Papiamentu translation team, working on the Papiamentu Common Language (PAPCL) translation, that is, the Beibel Papiamentu Koriente (1995), shows the complexity and sensitivity of the issue. Given the liturgical significance of the Ten Commandments for several churches, what seemed to be a trivial matter soon became a rather crucial decision.
“At first, following the aim of producing a natural translation, there was a general consensus to follow the natural mother-father word order. However, when reviewers from outside the translation team were told that the original order in Hebrew or Greek was often different, a heated debate developed. The underlying assumption in this discussion was that the natural order in Papiamentu reflects not only the preeminent role of women, but also — and perhaps more significantly — the lack of responsibility of the males (fathers) in the home. Thus the main question was whether the Bible translation, in following the natural language pattern, would not be endorsing the social reality of dysfunctional families, a reality caused by absentee and/or negligent fathers. In other words, the dilemma for the translation team was: Would not the translation be sanctioning this ‘deficient’ image of manhood and fatherhood by the mother-father sequence? This was accepted as being the case, and consequently the biblical pattern (father-mother) was interpreted as providing a necessary corrective to the social situation. (…)
“In practice the policy just described resulted in the following practical decisions:
“Maintain the original ‘patriarchal’ order:
Genesis 2:24 (NRSV): ‘Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother’ [PAPCL: su tata i mama]
Deuteronomy 5:16: ‘Honor your father and your mother’ [PAPCL: tata i mama]
[and numerous others]
“Alternatively, in some (less well-known) passages ‘father and mother’ has been translated as mayornan (‘parents’). This solution has the benefit of putting the focus on the equal function of the partners towards their offspring, not focusing on either gender.
Deuteronomy 33:9: ‘He [the men of the tribe of Levi] said of his father and mother’ [PAPCL: mayornan]
Luke 8:51: ‘When he arrived at the house of Jairus, he did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and the child’s father and mother’ [PAPCL: mayornan].
“Unfortunately, the natural collocation (mother-father) seems to be so natural that, contrary to the established policy to follow the Hebrew father-mother order, the Papiamentu mother-father still appears in, for example, Judges 14:9; Proverbs 23:25; Luke 2:33; 14.26; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7, 19. And the last three cases, in the New Testament, are direct quotations from the Old Testament! This might serve as a warning for translators who are following an idiomatic approach, to be careful with constructions that are very much ingrained in the psyche of the translators.” (Source: Marlon Winedt in The Bible Translator 2007, p. 56ff. )
Note that in Deuteronomy 22:21 “father’s house” is translated as “parents’ house” in the PAPCL translation.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Genesis 2:24:
Kankanaey: “Then he took the rib that he had removed and he turned-it-into a woman. When the man got-up/woke-up, right-there was the woman that God had taken to him. They two were naked, but they were not ashamed. The man said, ‘Now this is the one that suits me, because my bone, that is her bone just the same, and my flesh (muscle), that is her flesh also. I name her woman, because she came-from man.’ That is the reason that a man leaves his father and mother so-that he will take-into-his-home his wife, and they will become one.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Newari: “That being the case, a man, leaving his own father and mother, goes to live with his wife. And they will become one.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “That is the reason that a man leaves his father and mother and joins with his wife, and the two of them become-one.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “The first woman was taken from the man’s body, so that is why when a man and a woman marry, they must leave their parents. The man will join very closely to his wife, so that the two of them will be as though they are one person.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
The story ends with verse 23. However, the narrator speaks again in verse 24 to add an explanation that goes beyond the limits of the story outline. It is not possible for the man and woman in our story to leave their parents; so the application must be for later couples.
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother: man in verses 24 and 25 is ʾish in Hebrew (as in verse 23), but the word used in chapter 3 will be ʾadam again. Therefore introduces a conclusion or result: “Because of this…,” “Due to this…,” “This is why….” The conclusion is based on the whole story of the creation of the woman, beginning with verse 18 and including verse 23. Because the woman has been created as a suitable companion and support for the man, the man leaves his parental surroundings to unite with his wife. In many languages Therefore will have to be expanded in order to make this point clear; for example, one translation has “Because it happened like that, every man now leaves….” Another says “As a result of that the custom arose for a man to leave….”
Some interpreters have understood the man’s leaving his father and mother to mean that the man should go to live with the woman’s family and relatives or where the wife’s family lives. However, this seems to miss the point. The focus is upon the attraction, companionship, and suitability the man has experienced in the woman; and as a consequence of this he separates in some degree physically, socially, and spiritually from his parental home to begin another home with his companion. This focus may need to be brought out in translation, particularly in those parts of the world where the idea of the man leaving his parents at the time of his marriage is contrary to local custom. It is sometimes suggested that in these situations a cultural adaptation can be made that makes the text say “Therefore a woman leaves her mother and father….” However, some translators have found it more suitable to say, for example, “Therefore, both the husband and the wife leave their parents.” In other cases it is better to avoid the meaning of a man’s physical relocation altogether, and to express the sense in terms of his separating from the parents’ family unit to make a new family unit with his wife. If even this approach does not solve the problem, it may be necessary to include a note explaining that this text focuses on the setting up of a new family unit rather than on where that family unit is located.
Leaves his father … should not be translated by a word that means a break in relationships, such as “abandon, reject.” In some languages it is only possible to express leaves his father as physical separation, for example, “move away from, go away from, depart from,” or to express the idea of separation by saying “he stops living in the household of his parents.”
And cleaves to his wife: cleaves means “joins, stays close to, attaches himself to.” Like many other languages Hebrew does not distinguish between “wife” and “woman.” Accordingly wife is the same word as used in verse 23, but here it is grammatically possessed.
They become one flesh: flesh translates Hebrew basar, whose most common meaning is “meat” in contrast to bones. However, basar has a wide range of meanings: all living things, people and animals (Gen 6.12), humanity (Num 16.22), animal life (Gen 6.19), kin or brother (Gen 37.27), and various other meanings. Basar is the term used in 2.3, “flesh of my flesh.” Some interpreters argue that the reference is to sexual relations or to the child resulting from the union. However, it seems best to understand it to mean the result of the coming together itself, not as sex or offspring. Accordingly Bible en français courant translates “and the two of them become a single being,” Biblia Dios Habla Hoy “… one person,” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “… united in body and soul.” Good News Translation is more general with “they become one,” which may be expressed in terms of the beginning of a new family unit, that is, “They become a new family.”
Quoted with permission from Reyburn, William D. and Fry, Euan McG. A Handbook on Genesis. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.