The Greek that is translated into English as “gnashed their teeth” or “ground their teeth” is translated in Pwo Karen as “their eyes were green/blue with anger” (source: David Clark), in Yao as “they had itchy teeth” (“meaning they very anxious to destroy him”) (source: Nida / Reyburn, p. 56), in Estado de México Otomi as “gnashed their teeth at him to show anger” (to specify their emotion) (source: John Beekman in Notes on Translation, March 1965, p. 2ff.), in Coatlán Mixe as “ground their teeth in anger like wild hogs,” in Rincón Zapotec as “showed their teeth (like a dog) because of their anger” (source for this and before: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.), and in Gullah as suck dey teet or “suck their teeth” (source: David Frank).
In the the widely-used Mandarin ChineseUnion Version it is translated with an existing Chinese proverb: yǎoyá qièchǐ (咬牙切齿 / 咬牙切齒) or “gnash teeth, grind teeth.” (Source: Zetzsche)
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “adultery” in English (here etymologically meaning “to alter”) is typically understood as “marital infidelity.” It is (back-) translated in the following ways:
Toraja-Sa’dan: “to measure the depth of the river of (another’s) marriage”
North Alaskan Inupiatun: “married people using what is not theirs” (compare “fornication” which is “unmarried people using what is not theirs”) (source for this and all above: Bratcher / Nida)
The Greek and Hebrew terms that are translated as “hypocrite” in English typically have a counterpart in most languages. According to Bratcher / Nida (1961, p. 225), they can be categorized into the following categories:
those which employ some concept of “two” or “double”
those which make use of some expression of “mouth” or “speaking”
those which are based upon some special cultural feature
those which employ a non-metaphorical phrase
Following is a list of (back-) translations from some languages:
Mazahua: “have a swollen mouth” (from too much speaking)
Tai Dam: “have a straight mouth and a crooked heart”
Kongo: “the bitterness of white” (an idiom based on the fact that white-wash looks nice but tastes bitter)
Merina Malagasy: “spread a clean carpet” (an expression used in Madagascar to describe one who covers up the dirt of an unswept floor just before the arrival of guests)
Zanaki: “those who make themselves out to be good”
Tetelcingo Nahuatl: “those who deceive” (this and all examples above acc. to Bratcher / Nida 1961, p. 225)
Kafa: “one who makes as if his belly is clean” (source: Loren Bliese)
Bauzi: “good on top person” (source: David Briley in Kroneman (2004), p. 502)
Tibetan: kha chos pa (ཁ་ཆོས་པ།), lit. “mouth + religion + person” (used for instance in Matt. 7:5) or sgyu zog can (སྒྱུ་ཟོག་ཅན།), lit. “deception + fraud + person” (used for instance in Matt. 24:51) (source: gSungrab website )
Low German: “actor in a comedy” (translation by Johannes Jessen, publ. 1933, republ. 2006)
Lélé: ne kub so or “make mouth two” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
The Latvian term liekulis was likely coined by the Bible translation of Ernst Glück (1654–1705) in the late 17th century and is still being used today (source ).
The English version of Sarah Ruden (2021) uses “play-actor.” She explains (p. li): “A hupokrites is fundamentally an actor. The word has deep negativity in the Gospels on two counts: professional actors were not respectable people in the ancient world, and traditional Judaism did not countenance any kind of playacting. I write ‘play-actor’ throughout.”
The Greek that is translated as “woe to you” or similar in English is translated in Martu Wangka as “you sit as sorry ones” (source: Carl Gross). Toraja-Sa’dan has two expressions that can be used: upu’ allomu or “to-their-end are your days” and sumpu sumandakmu or “finished is what-is-measured-out to you.” In the case of Luke 10:13, where “woe” is doubled, both are used for stylistic, non-repetitive purposes (see Reiling / Swellengrebel).
In Matumbi it is translated as Wakibona or “You will see” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext) and in the Contemporary Chichewa translation (2002/2016) with a phrase containing tsoka, a word to describe something bad that happens (or may happen) to a person because of doing something against established traditions in a community (source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation).
In Hebrew it is translated as oy (אוֹי) and in Yiddish as oy (אוי) or vey (וֵויי). Note that oy vey in combination is also commonly used in Yiddish as an interjection of dismay and vey is derived from the GermanWehe (which in turn has the same root than the English woe). (Source: Jost Zetzsche)
Another often transliterated biblical term is bĕhēmôt (…). The Hebrew noun behemâ typically means “beast, animal, cattle,” while the -ôt feminine plural ending here seems to indicate something like a “plural of majesty,” since in the context of Job 40, this creature is obviously singular in number.
Countless tons of ink have been spilled in arguments over whether this creature is a hippopotamus, an elephant, a dinosaur, or a mythical amalgam of large, powerful land animals. The point that is of interest to us here is that in modern English, at least the U.S. variety which I speak, the commonly recognized meaning of the term behemoth has become the following: “any monstrous or grotesque creature or thing,” “something of oppressive or monstrous size or power.” This word is usually applied as a description of inanimate entities, such as “a behemoth car” or “the behemoth government agency,” but can occasionally also be used to refer to animate creatures. A quick search through a corpus of contemporary American English (…) shows that the term is often used with a negative connotation approximating “more trouble than it’s worth.” So when an English reader who has not had much contact with Christian teaching or the Bible reads this passage in Job for the first time, it is quite likely that associations of oppressiveness or inutility will color this reader’s initial mental image of the creature, even though the context of the verse does not contain any such connotations, but rather the opposite connotation of appreciative wonder.
The Russian Synodal translation (RST) has transliterated this word from the Hebrew as “бегемот” (begemot), apparently borrowing this rendering from the Russian scholar/poet M. Lomonosov in his poetic translation of the Job 40 passage (c. 1750 AD). What is of interest is that this very transliteration has become the main term meaning “hippopotamus” in modern Russian. There is another Russian term with an almost completely synonymous meaning, “gippopotam,” derived from ancient Greek, but in contemporary Russian usage this latter term is becoming more and more obsolete, or at least restricted to scientific contexts. An informal corpus study of the use of the word begemot in Russian texts indicates that prior to the publication of the RST, it was used to refer to monstrously large animals, but not specifically to the hippopotamus. Thus, it seems that what gave the meaning of “hippopotamus” to the transliterated word “begemot” was the tradition of scriptural interpretation in favor at the time of the translation of the RST. Even though the transliteration “begemot” was originally introduced into the Russian text of Job ostensibly because the translators were not quite sure what this creature was, the new word eventually came to refer unambiguously to the hippopotamus and nothing else.
What should the Tuvan translation team have done with this term? (Note: The goal of the Tuvan translators was to match the Tuvan transliterations with those of the Russian Synodal translation)? the RST, which all Tuvan believers currently read as their main Bible version, specifically states in Job 40:15 that this animal is a begemot, which in contemporary Russian is completely unambiguous as meaning “hippopotamus.” This is the meaning with which the Russian word has already been borrowed into the Tuvan language. Maintaining this transliteration would mean affirming this specific interpretation of the Hebrew term “bĕhēmôt.” Although the explicit “hippopotamus” interpretation is found in some other modern translations (e.g., the English CEV, The FrenchLa Bible en français courant or Louis Segond’s translation, or the ItalianConferenza Episcopala Italiana), the Tuvan translation team did not want to commit themselves wholeheartedly to this interpretation. So we decided to retransliterate the Hebrew word using a different medial consonant — “бехемот” (bekhemot), with a footnote explaining this decision as an attempt to remain open-minded concerning the exact nature of this beast. This new transliteration created a word that did not have any pre-existing semantic associations transferred from the Russian language. Only time will tell how exactly future generations of Tuvinian Bible readers will react to the new transliteration of this term, and whether or not they will imbue it with the same “hippopotamus” sense as in the RST or with something completely unforeseen by our translation team.
In Mandarin Chinese is is translated as hémǎ (河马 / 河馬) or “hippo” (lit. “river – horse”). (Source: Zetzsche)
In other contexts the Hebrew word behemah refers generally to any large animal and specifically to cattle, but in Job 40:15 (where the Hebrew word is plural) the animal is described, and this identifies it as one particular kind of animal. There are basically three possible interpretations:
a) A mythical monster, symbolic of the forces of evil. Later rabbinical writings make reference to this monster, who is said to engage in a critical fight with another monster, Leviathan. In some of these writings it is said that the meat to be eaten at the Great Feast of Abraham in the last days will be the meat of Behemoth. It was associated with the “great sea monsters” mentioned in Genesis 1:21.
b) The Hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibious. This suggestion has been widely accepted and included in various English versions in footnotes. The hippopotamus was certainly well-known in Egypt and possibly in parts of Mesopotamia. However, the description in Job 40:15,16,17,18,19,20 does not fit the hippopotamus at many points:
For one thing the strength and the powerful muscles of Behemoth mentioned in could hardly be associated with the hippopotamus, which spends most of its time quietly grazing or just resting in the water. (The jaws of a hippo are enormously strong, and bull hippos are dangerous animals, but overall, even a careful observer would not be struck with awe at its muscles and strength.)
Secondly, the very small stubby tail of the hippopotamus cannot be raised and is only used for scattering dung as the hippo defecates. It could hardly be likened to a cedar as Job 40:17 says.
And finally, in Job 40:20 Behemoth is said to be fed by the grass of the mountains, but hippos normally feed on riverbanks, or in the vicinity of flood plains and river valleys, and are rarely, if ever, found in hills, since their extremely short legs and great weight make it difficult for them to step over rocks or climb steep slopes.
c) The elephant. Both the African Elephant Loxodonta Africana, which lived in the Nile valley in southern Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia, and the Indian Elephant Elephas maximus, which lived in northern Mesopotamia, were known in Old Testament times. The description of Behemoth fits the elephant better than the hippopotamus. Its great strength is very evident. When running, elephants also hold their tails out straight. However, the Hebrew word translated as “tail” could also refer to the trunk. The mention of “lying down under the thorn trees, in the cover of the reeds in the marsh” (Job 40:21) could refer to the well-known habit elephants have of taking dust baths and wallowing in mudholes and rivers.
It has sometimes been argued that the references to frequenting rivers and eating grass cannot apply to elephants. But in fact, riverine grasses are a favorite food of elephants, and they often spend hours at a time in rivers and waterholes.
It is probably best to use an expression like “the monster Behemoth” in the body of the text with a footnote indicating that this possibly refers to the elephant, assuming of course that elephants are known to the readers. If they are unknown it would be better to omit the footnote.
The Greek in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that is translated by English versions with a wide range of translations, including “male prostitutes, sodomites” or some terminology involving “homosexuality” is translated in Ixcatlán Mazatec as “feminine men and men who sleep with feminine men” since the typically-used term for “homosexual” is the passive or feminine partner, while here both passive and active partners are specified. (Source: Robert Bascom)
in Low German it is translated as Lüd, de an lütte Kinner sich vergaht oder mit Jungns wat vörhebbt or “people who abuse little children or who have [nefarious] plans with boys” (translation by Johannes Jessen, publ. 1933, republ. 2006). In the German Protestant Luther translation and the Catholic Einheitsübersetzung it says Lustknaben und Knabenschänder, literally “boys to be abused for lust and abuser of boys”. In the Pennsylvania Dutch translation it is adda dee vo shanda dreiva, mennah mitt mennah un veibsleit mitt veibsleit or “all those who sin, men with men and women with women.” (Source: Zetzsche)
In the DutchNBV21 it is translated as “men who prostitute themselves or those who abuse other men.”
In Mairasi it is translated as “people who sell/discard themselves and play bad games/dances, and those who turn sides bad [act shamefully] with just men, just women [homosexuals].” (Source: Enggavoter 2004)
The Greek terms that are translated “mat” or “bed” or similar in English are translated in Ebira as odooro or “stretcher.” Hans-Jürgen Scholz (in Holzhausen 1991, p. 42f.) explains the long odyssey of finding the right term: The regular term for “bed” (ode) didn’t work since this only referred to the traditional raised mud floor used for sleeping which was unmovable and could not be used in the story. The term iveedi was used for a movable bed with a metal frame also did not work since it exclusively referred to modern beds imported from Japan which of course could also not be used in the context of the story. The word for “mat” (uvene) was also impossible to use since traditional mats are fragile and and could not possible be used to lower someone down from the roof. Finally the term odooro for “stretcher” was used.
Still the first version that used that term and said “roll up your stretcher and leave” still had to be changed one more time since stretchers are traditionally made of old rags and only used once. Therefore in the final text it had to be emphasized that the odooro had to be just cleared out of the house as a courtesy by the healed paralytic rather than to be kept for further use.
The Pfälzisch translation by Walter Sauer (publ. 2012) uses Bahr, also “stretcher.” (Source: Zetzsche)
The Greek that is translated as “tongues as of fire” or similar in English is translated as “it was seen like little fires” in Eastern Highland Otomi, “like little balls of fire” in Rincón Zapotec, as “little things like points of fire” in Highland Popoluca (source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.), and as “teeth of fire” in Bhele (source: Tim Raymond).
In German, a form of the word “Zunge” (“tongue”) is idiomatically used in combination with “Feuer” (“fire“), displayed particularly well by the New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999) with züngelnde Flammen or “flickering flames” (literally: “licking (as done with the tongue) flames”). (Source: Zetzsche)
