John the Baptist

The name that is transliterated as “John (the Baptist)” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language and Mexican Sign Language as “baptize” (source: John Elwode in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 78ff. ).


“John the Baptist” in Mexican Sign Language (source: BSLM )

In German Sign Language (Catholic) it is translated with the sign for the letter J and the sign signifying a Catholic baptism by sprinkling on the head.


“John” in German Sign Language /catholic, source: Taub und katholisch

In American Sign Language it is translated with the sign for the letter J and the sign signifying “shout,” referring to John 1:23. (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)


“John” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor

Similarly, in French Sign Language, it is “prepare the way.” (Source: Lexique – Explications en langue des signes)

In Vietnamese (Hanoi) Sign Language it is translated with the sign for leaping in the womb (see Luke 1:41) and baptism. (Source: The Vietnamese Sign Language translation team, VSLBT)


“John” in Vietnamese Sign Language, source: SooSL

A question of cultural assumptions arose in Tuvan. The instinctive way to translate this name denotatively would be “John the Dipper,” but this would carry the highly misleading connotation that he drowned people. It was therefore decided that his label should focus on the other major aspect of his work, that is, proclaiming that the Messiah would soon succeed him. (Compare his title in Russian Orthodox translation “Иоанн Предтеча” — “John the Forerunner.”) So he became “John the Announcer,” which fortunately did not seem to give rise to any confusion with radio newsreaders! (Source: David Clark in The Bible Translator 2015, p. 117ff. )

For more information on translations of proper names with sign language see Sign Language Bible Translations Have Something to Say to Hearing Christians .

In Noongar it is translated as John-Kakaloorniny or “John Washing” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).

A new oral translation into Yao / Ciyawo, spoken in Mozambique, uses John the one who ceremoniously washes/pours water, using a term (kusingula) that “indicates a ceremonial washing or pouring of water on a person in the Yawo’s expression of Islam which can be used for an act done in repentance of sin.” (Source: Houston 2025, p. 236)

See also John the Baptist (icon) and learn more on Bible Odyssey: John the Baptist .

John the Baptist (icon)

Following is a Syriac Orthodox icon of John the Baptist from the 18/19th century (found in the Cathedral of Saints Constantine and Helen, Yabrud, Syria).

 
The wings are often depicted in icons of John the Baptist because of his status as a messenger. The scroll that John the Baptist holds quotes John 1:29 and reads (translated into English): “I saw and witnessed concerning him, ‘Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.’”

Orthodox Icons are not drawings or creations of imagination. They are in fact writings of things not of this world. Icons can represent our Lord Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the Saints. They can also represent the Holy Trinity, Angels, the Heavenly hosts, and even events. Orthodox icons, unlike Western pictures, change the perspective and form of the image so that it is not naturalistic. This is done so that we can look beyond appearances of the world, and instead look to the spiritual truth of the holy person or event. (Source )

See also John the Baptist.

John as a first-person evangelist (John 10:40)

In the Yatzachi Zapotec translation of the Gospel of John, any reference to the evangelist and presumed narrator is done in the first person.

The translator Inez Butler explains (in: Notes on Translation, September 1967, pp. 10ff.):

“In revising the Gospel of John in Yatzachi Zapotec we realized from the start that the third person references of Jesus to himself as Son of Man had to be converted into first person references, but only more recently have we decided that similar change is necessary in John’s references to himself as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved.’ As I worked on those changes and questioned the informant about his understanding of other passages in the Gospel, I discovered that the reader misses the whole focus of the book as an eyewitness account unless every reference to the disciples indicates the writer’s membership in the group. In view of that we went back through the entire book looking for ways to cue in the reader to the fact that John was an eyewitness and a participant in a many of the events, as well as the historian.

“When the disciples were participants in events along with Jesus, it was necessary to make explicit the fact that they accompanied him, although in the source language that is left implicit, since otherwise our rendering would imply that they were not present.”

In this verse, the Yatzachi Zapotec says: “Then we went with Jesus and stayed on the other side of the river Jordan . . .”

complete verse (John 10:40)

Following are a number of back-translations of John 10:40:

  • Uma: “From there, Yesus went out going to the other side of the Yordan river, to the baptizing-place of Yohanes before, and he stayed there.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “So-then Isa went back again to the other side of the river Jordan, there to the place where Yahiya had bathed the people. He stayed there for a while (lit. if how many days).” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And Jesus left Jerusalem and crossed the River Jordan and he went to the land where John the Baptist was baptizing before. And there Jesus stayed.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “After that he returned to the other-side of the river Jordan where Juan had-been-baptizing previously, and that’s where he stayed.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Jesus next returned to the other side/bank of the Jordan, to the place where Juan was first baptizing. He stayed there.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “When Jesus returned again, he crossed the river Jordan and there he remained. It was the place where John was baptizing at the first.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

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)

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 .

Honorary "are" construct denoting God (“stay”)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme are (され) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, taizais-are-ru (滞在される) or “stay” is used.

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on John 10:40

The Greek of this verse does not explicitly mention Jesus, but it is obvious that the pronoun “he” of the Greek text refers to him; Good News Translation and New English Bible make this information explicit in the text. Jerusalem Bible does so by means of a section heading (“Jesus withdraws to the other side of the Jordan”).

The Greek of this verse and the two following verses reflects Semitic style in the use of the coordinating conjunction “and.” Literally these verses are introduced, “(40) And he … (41) And many people … (42) And many people.” Naturally, it is not necessary to retain all these “ands” in the receptor language. Good News Translation, for example, has and only in verse 42.

The Greek has “across the Jordan”; Good News Translation adds the classifier River.

Where John had been baptizing is more literally “where John at first baptized” (Revised Standard Version) or “Where John was baptizing earlier.” By the use of the past perfect tense (had been baptizing), Good News Translation retains the force of the Greek past linear tense “was baptizing” in combination with the adverb “earlier.” If a choice must be made between the rendering “at first” and “earlier,” then “earlier” is to be preferred. To translate “at first” may suggest that John at first baptized at this place and later baptized somewhere else. Rather, the force of the Greek is merely to throw back the point of action to an earlier time (see New English Bible “where John had been baptizing earlier”). The place referred to is Bethany (see 1.28).

In selecting the form of the verb stayed it may be necessary in some languages to imply the time approximately involved, whether a few days, a few weeks, or several months. In view of the context, a form suggesting a period of several weeks may be preferable.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .