The Bible Translator http://tbt.sagepub.

com/

Embarrassed by the Bible: What's a Translator to Do?

Carl Gross The Bible Translator 2012 63: 87 DOI: 10.1177/026009351206300203 The online version of this article can be found at: http://tbt.sagepub.com/content/63/2/87.citation

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

United Bible Societies

Additional services and information for The Bible Translator can be found at: Email Alerts: http://tbt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://tbt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from tbt.sagepub.com at GORDON COLLEGE on May 29, 2013

>> Version of Record - Apr 1, 2012 What is This?

Downloaded from tbt.sagepub.com at GORDON COLLEGE on May 29, 2013

BT Vol. 63, No. 2: 87-94

Embarrassed by the Bible: Whats a Translator to Do?

Carl Gross gross2oz@gmail.com

The author is an international translation consultant based in Australia.

Despite our cultural differences, there is one thing that we all do, namely, feel shame or get embarrassed. There are things that we cringe at, that cause us to feel uncomfortable and, perhaps, to blush, to lower our faces and not make eye contact with others. The things that embarrass us may be different; indeed, almost certainly some things that embarrass you will not have that effect on me, while other things will make me very uncomfortable and you will wonder why. This is due to our cultures being different, but that does not change the fact that we all have the capacity to become embarrassed. Some people may be surprised, embarrassed even, by the topic of this article Embarrassed by the Bible. They might think that Christians should not be embarrassed by the foundation of our faith. But if we open the Bible at almost any page and start reading, it will probably not take long until we reach something that makes someone feel uncomfortable; yes, something that may even be offensive to some! What sort of things am I referring to? Among the things in the Bible that may embarrass people are the following: 1. Swearing, i.e., profanity, bad language 2. References to toilet functions 3. References to genitals, breasts, sex, and related matters, such as prostitutes 4. References to circumcision 5. Bad theology, i.e., things that offend what we believe 6. References to death and dying For more details on these subjects of embarrassment, see the Appendix. Reaction to embarrassment The most usual way of dealing with embarrassing sections of the Bible is to use euphemism, that is, to talk about the embarrassing topic in a roundabout way. Sometimes euphemism is referred to as a polite way of saying something, and since the aim is to remove the embarrassment caused by a text, I refer to it as 87
Downloaded from tbt.sagepub.com at GORDON COLLEGE on May 29, 2013

88

the bible translator vol. 63, no. 2 (april 2012)

sanitizing the text, as if it is cleaning the text of something dirty. Examples of this are pass away for die, and sleep with or the Hebrew euphemism know (reproduced in KJV and related translations), both of which mean have sex with. In the Bible feet is sometimes the polite way of referring to the genitals and cover the feet refers to relieving oneself (also a euphemism). This makes it easier to read out in church, because no one will snicker, or suck in their breath in horror, and the reader will not be embarrassed to read it. This tendency to use euphemisms seems to be found in all cultures, and it is quite acceptable to do so in translation as wellprovided that the meaning is not lost. When I was young, I thought that the reason King Saul went into the cave to cover his feet (1Sam24.3) was that he was tired and wanted to have a short sleep, so he put a blanket over his feet because it was cool in the cave in comparison with the desert heat outside. Here, for me, the euphemism obscured the meaning, and so it was bad translation. But the opposite can also be a problem. If a translator, having understood well the meaning of the biblical euphemism, chooses to use a term that expresses the meaning explicitly, the physical action comes into full focus, perhaps quite explicitly, even though the biblical author himself used a euphemism to tone it down a bit. Thus we can both over-translate and undertranslate. A good rule of thumb is to use euphemisms where the Bible uses them, and to be equally as explicit as the Bible where the Bible chooses to be explicit. Noise in semantic transfer Before going any farther, let me introduce the idea of noise in the transfer of the message. The term itself comes from the study of radio and other similar waves, where noise refers to background radiation, other than the messagecarrying signal, which interferes with and may even drown out the signal. So noise in human communication may refer to anything that obscures the clarity of the message being communicated from sender to receiver, or causes any of the meaning to be lost, or deflects the attention of the hearer so that the message does not come through fully and clearly. Sensitive and embarrassing topics are significant producers of noise. Such topics, relating to sex, body parts, and natural bodily functions, often carry negative connotations because people feel embarrassed when they hear or speak of them. This embarrassment tends to deflect the readers or hearers attention from the message. As such, these topics can be described as noise. Even when the noise is reduced by the use of euphemism, a certain amount of noise remains inherent in the topic. Because most cultures use euphemisms for these topics, it seems that some degree of reticence in talking about them applies in all cultures. Nevertheless, the level of noise may well vary among different cultures, and even among different strata within a culture. Some cultures may be more open than others about certain topics. Western culture, for example, is more comfortable with sex and nudity, especially in our movies, than are the Aboriginal, Melanesian, and Polynesian cultures that I work with, while the Dutch are apparently more open-minded than

Downloaded from tbt.sagepub.com at GORDON COLLEGE on May 29, 2013

Translating Embarrassing Concepts in the Bible

89

most. On the other hand, for some Melanesians it is more shocking for a woman to bare the front of her thighs than to go topless. Some cultures have few qualms in talking about circumcision; for others, the topic is taboo. Within a culture, the differences may be marked by gender, class, or age. In Australia, males, working class, and young people tend to be less restricted in their use of profanity and crude sexual terminology. Even in clinical situations, where the embarrassment level could be expected to be lower, English has developed a bewildering array of euphemistic technical terminology for these topics (for example, flatulence, passing water, stools, coitus, etc.). The profusion of such euphemisms, both sophisticated and crude, reflects our continuing embarrassment. Noise can occur whenever these topics are raised, whether they are explicit or rendered by euphemisms. But there are some instances where noise may still occur even if the level of embarrassment is negligible. Terms that refer to embarrassing topics, however innocently they are used, are likely to cause noise. All they need to do is deflect attention from the message. The use of the terms circumcised and uncircumcised in the New Testament to refer to Jews and Gentiles is an example of this, as is Stephens reference to his audience as uncircumcised in heart and ears in Acts 7.51. In these examples, the physical act of circumcision is not in focus at all; the word is used metaphorically, or as shorthand. This raises the question of how we approach Ezekiel 16 and 23 and, to some degree, Song of Songs. What should we do with the explicitly sexual nature of these passages? Should they be sanitized to remove the embarrassment of their sexual tone? I suggest that it would undermine the message that the author put into those texts to do so. Ezekiel very deliberately framed his prophecy in the explicitly sexual terms that he did, with the intention of shocking his audience to a deeper understanding of the situation they found themselves in. He could have used political vocabulary to make the same points, but he chose the confrontational sexual picture because it would drive the message home more vividly and effectively than any other method. I dont claim to fully understand the implications of his choice, but I strongly believe that the gut-wrenching emotional impact of the sordid picture that he described in such graphic detail is a crucial part of the message. And if we dont feel it, we miss much of the message. Thus, the explicit sexual tone, even the offensiveness, of these chapters of Ezekiel is not, in fact, noise; it is part of the message! As I have already suggested, different cultures have differing levels of openness or taboo on embarrassing topics, and they react to potentially embarrassing material in different ways. Some are shocked at material that other cultures readily accept. As a result, in translation the former are likely to use euphemism where the latter are comfortable with more explicit terminology. For example, those cultures in which discussion of circumcision, breasts, and penises is free and open are more likely to retain the original terms, while those cultures where discussion of such topics is embarrassing or taboo are more likely to look

Downloaded from tbt.sagepub.com at GORDON COLLEGE on May 29, 2013

90

the bible translator vol. 63, no. 2 (april 2012)

for other ways of rendering what they regard as a difficult text. Different cultures have different points at which they say, Weve gone as far as we can go! In the face of these different cultural approaches, meaning-based translation must chart a course between a thoughtless retention of the words and phrases of the original, which might offend or embarrass readers in the receptor culture, and a thoroughgoing cleaning up of the original to make sure that none of the hearers will be shocked by what they hear or read. Faithful translation depends on eliciting the same response from the modern audience as the text elicited from the first hearers. This, of course, cuts both ways. It requires that terms and phrases that have no element of embarrassment or offensiveness in the original (like circumcision in much of the New Testament) should cause no, or as little as possible, embarrassment in the receptor culture. Any embarrassment that does apply in this case is noise. On the other hand, if a text is meant to shock (like the sexual terminology of Ezekiel), then readers in the receptor culture should also feel embarrassment or shock. In that case, the embarrassment is not noise. A faithful translation will try to do both these things. Towards a shockability test It is very difficult to know how to translate potentially embarrassing material. In some of these passages, as I have just said, the message depends on the level of reaction stimulated, that is, the passages are meant to shock the audience. That shock is part of the message. There are others that rely on an element of coarseness and vulgarity to maintain the vividness of the narrative, for example, the story of Ehud in Judges 3, where the smell of the toilet as someone is using it is crucial for an appreciation of the story. And there are yet others that use terminology that might offend or embarrass modern ears, although in the original context there was absolutely no element of embarrassment intended (for example, circumcision in the New Testament). Therefore, a translator or interpreter must assess the level of adverse reaction (i.e., embarrassment, shock, shame, discomfort) which is likely to be stimulated by a rendering, and balance this against the potential benefit of accuracy and faithfulness. It is not a simple matter of balancing the two ends of a see-saw. The balancing act is complicated by the shockability of the receptor audience, that is, the things that the receptor audience will be shocked by, and the depth of their embarrassment. It is impossible to develop a universal guide of shockability that will apply to all cultures. What is possible, however, is to develop a shame test to measure the relative shockability of the source material and the receptor audience. This would involve three main steps: 1. Identify the shock value of the biblical text which contains the potentially offensive material. This is recorded on a shockability (or shame) scale; 2. Identify the shock value of the same material for the receptor culture. This is also recorded on a shockability (or shame) scale; 3. Compare the two scales and attempt to find a rendering that brings the point on the receptor culture scale as close as possible to that on the biblical culture scale.

Downloaded from tbt.sagepub.com at GORDON COLLEGE on May 29, 2013

Translating Embarrassing Concepts in the Bible

91

An example of this is illustrated in the following figure: Figure 1: Shame test Scale (A) Shockability of biblical text Low C High P

Scale (B) Shockability of receptor audience Low 3P 1C 2C 2P High 1P

Discussion 1. Scale (A) shows how much shock value (or shame) might be thought to be associated with the biblical terminology for, say, circumcision (C) and prostitution (P). (These topics are chosen purely for illustration, and their positions on the scale should not be taken as establishedthough they are probably about right.) The positions of C and P on this scale show that, for the circumcision terminology, no shock or embarrassment was intended, but for the prostitution terminology some embarrassment and shame were involved. Scale(B) shows the shock value of these two topics for culture #1 and culture#2. 2. For culture #1, the shock value of circumcision (1C) is minimal, matching the biblical context, and we would expect that culture #1 would use equally explicit terms as the Bible. The same is true for culture #2 in respect of the topic of prostitution (2P), except that in both the Bible and culture #2, prostitution causes a medium level of shock or shame. 3. Prostitution is a taboo topic in culture #1 (1P) and circumcision causes a medium level of discomfort in culture #2 (2C). Both cultures are considerably more sensitive about these topics than the Bible is. The topics will therefore cause greater adverse reaction than intended if taken over into the receptor cultures unadjusted. This difference is noise. As a result, we would expect that culture #1 would seek to remove or minimize explicit references to prostitution, but if the shock level was totally removed and fell lower on the scale than P stands in scale (A), the translation has been unacceptably sanitized. On the other hand, culture #2 needs to find a totally sanitized way of referring to circumcision, because any embarrassment arising from the use of the term will be unintended and counter-productive, because it is noise. 4. If there is a third culture in which prostitution is a very acceptable subject of conversation (3P), a translation into their language would require that some

Downloaded from tbt.sagepub.com at GORDON COLLEGE on May 29, 2013

92

the bible translator vol. 63, no. 2 (april 2012)

way be found to increase the shock level of the passage so that it more closely matches the position of P on scale (A). This test would also be useful for the potentially offensive passages from Ezekiel, although its application would be slightly different. In the examples in Figure 1, the shame test would assist the translator to reduce the amount of noise, i.e., unwarranted adverse reaction, generated by difficult passages. In Ezekiel, the aim would not be to reduce the reaction, but rather to ensure that an appropriate amount of shock value is retained. In Figure 2, I have chosen two topics from Ezekiel as examples: pubic hair (16.7) and genitalia (e.g., 16.26, 36; 23.20). Figure 2: Shame test on certain passages in Ezekiel Scale (A) Shockability of Ezekiel text Low H Scale (B) Shockability of receptor audience Low 3G 3H High 1&2 G High

Discussion 1. Scale (A) shows that, even for Ezekiel, the pubic hair (H) and the genitals (G) had high shock value, that is, their explicit use was intended to shock. (Again, the precise positions of these topics on the scale may be debated, but something like what I have shown is likely to be the case and serves to illustrate the point.) In scale (B), for cultures #1 and #2, discussion of either topic is so taboo that it is off the scale! However, the more open-minded culture#3 has equal discomfort as Hebrew in talking about pubic hair, but is more comfortable about talking about genitalia. 2. With the noise, or shock value, so high for all three cultures, many translators would be tempted to remove the offending passages totally, or sanitize them so thoroughly that they cause no offence to any one. 3. As I have suggested above, for Ezekiel, this so-called noise is not in fact noise. The shock value is integral to the message. The shame test, by showing what shock value the original had, enables translators to incorporate an appropriate level of shock, even where they feel constrained to remove the explicit terminology of the original which is just too shocking for their cultures. Different cultures will do this in different ways. The actual words they use are not as important as achieving the right level of shock for the receptor culture. Thus renderings of the big penises (literally big of fleshnote that this

Downloaded from tbt.sagepub.com at GORDON COLLEGE on May 29, 2013

Translating Embarrassing Concepts in the Bible

93

itself is a euphemism) of 16.26 may range from the somewhat coarse wellhung through to over-sexed or they are always wanting to have sex. It depends on where the chosen term stands on scale (B), and provided it stands somewhere near the G in scale (A), the rendering is acceptable. Conclusion The value of the shame test depends, of course, on the accuracy of the classification of the material on both the source culture scale (A) and the receptor culture scale (B). Scale (A) is not easy to develop because we are dealing with cultures 2000-3000 years old. Nevertheless it is an appropriate task for scholars to give as much guidance as possible to translators and biblical interpreters on where difficult words and topics in the Bible should stand on scale (A). For scale (B), however, it is impossible to develop an universal scale, in view of the differences between cultures (even cultures that are fairly close to each other). Translators in each culture must develop a scale (B) for their own culture. It is not an easy task, but it must be attempted if we are to have adequate translations that communicate the message of the Scriptures accurately and faithfully. Appendix Examples of things that may embarrass Swearing Toilet functions Genitals, breasts, sex, etc. 1 Samuel 20.30 Defecation (Judg 3.22, 24; 1 Sam 24.3; 1 Kgs 18.27) and urination (Ezek 7.17; 1 Sam 25.22, 34; 1 Kgs 14.10; 16.11; 21.21; 2 Kgs 9.8) Song of Songs (in various places, and specifically 1.13), Isa 7.20 (on the euphemistic use of feet), Gen 31.35 (on menstruation); Ezek 16.6-7 (on pubic hair, breasts and nakedness); childbirth and nursing (1 Thess 5.3; Luke 11.27). Perhaps most confronting of all are Ezekiel 16 and 23, in which sexual references abound (see 16.7; 23.3, 8, 21, 34 [breasts]; 16.7, 8, 22, 36, 37, 39; 23.10, 18, 26, 29 [nakedness]; 16.15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41; 23.3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 18, 19, 27, 29, 30, 35, 43, 44 [prostitutes and prostitution; RSV: harlot]; 16.33, 36, 37, 39; 23.5, 9, 22 [illicit lovers]; 16.43, 58; 23.21, 27, 29, 35, 44, 48, 49 [lewdness/sexual immorality]; 16.26, 36, 23.20 [genitalia]).

Downloaded from tbt.sagepub.com at GORDON COLLEGE on May 29, 2013

94

the bible translator vol. 63, no. 2 (april 2012)

Circumcision

Bad theology

Death and dying

There are over 100 references to circumcision in the Bible, 75 in the New Testament. See my article Circumcision in the New Testament: Translating without Embarrassment, The Bible Translator 50.4 (1999): 422-27. But compare also Josh 5.3 (hill of foreskins) and 1 Sam 18.25-27 (Sauls challenge to David to get 100 Philistine foreskins as a bride price for Michal). Genesis 44.5-14 (which clearly shows the patriarch Joseph practising magic). Other examples of bad theology in this sense are: The translators who had David jumping up and down in front of the covenant box in 2 Samuel 6 because, as they explained, Were evangelicals, and we dont dance! The choice of a term to render baptiseshould it be immerse or sprinkle? The rendering of the words for the institution of the Eucharist or Holy Communion. A translator or TC from a free church background which sees the bread and wine as symbolic of the body and blood is much more likely to accept renderings like This represents my body or This is like my blood than a Catholic, Orthodox, or Lutheran translator or TC. The choice of virgin or young woman in Isa 7.14. In many Western cultures, people often refer to this as pass away, deceased, etc.

Downloaded from tbt.sagepub.com at GORDON COLLEGE on May 29, 2013