Sexual Language and Roasting a Translator

Bryan, Several interesting things here. I also posted this same radiolab segment recently under the less-enticing title "translation." But I like the context you give it here. And I generally agree with your comments about audience expectations and translator limits. But as to the "Deaf Comedy Jam" segment, I think some complicating factors are involved. Jefferey Ross never was communicating with the deaf girl in the audience (yes, there was only one). He was using the SL interpreter as a prop for his communication with his hearing audience, an audience with very different expectations as to what was appropriate to "mime" (or in SL terms, to sign). The interpreter went along with this new communication frame, and did not worry about her deaf audience of one with whom she actually had the translation brief. Now as to that brief, I think it would have included (at least implicitly) being as true as she could be to the source communication without derailing the whole thing by offending the audience too much (the deaf girl left after intermission, by the way). And here is the rub for your basic argument: if, for example, we insist on translating that Abraham's servant "put his hand under his thigh," (or something even more clear/explicit) without any note or comment, in spite of knowing that our audience will think this is a homosexual act, we will mis-translate just as surely as if we say "he shook his hand firmly" or some such tame substitute. I would personally favor being pretty explicit here, but with a note ("he really did touch his genitals, but this was a solemn vow, not a homosexual act"). As much as we would like to, we cannot ignore our audience expectations, even when we think they have it all wrong.

this is a very important issue, and like you, I am not in favor ofsoftening what is actually in the text, Some of the harsh sexual language is here for a reason, to shock, and some is discretely worded in incredible metaphors (Song of songs). But several questions come to mind. One is how do we know what was the level of shock or non-shock associated with a given (sexual) expression, since we only have the bible in a language no longer spoken...wouldn't it be fair to at least try to use expressions that are equivalent in shock value? For example 'went into' might not have been that crass in bibilical culture, and might be our equivalent of 'slept with' Who knows? How can we know? or do you want to go for a straight foreign text and put the burden of interpretation in the context of that distant culture on the modern reader/receptor, many of whom wouldn't have a clue....? I like the proposal of the person above, who does not want to hide or tone down anything, but is careful to make sure the reason behind an act or a certain language is understood Your question makes me think of another issue: how honest are we abou textual problems and differences? I think in the West (and particularly in the US) publishers/translators have opted for less rather than more information about the nature of the text. In Africa I have tried to encourage translators to 'tell the truth' ...Yes it is confusing for readers to see there are alternative texts, texts where a word might be missing, texts where no one really knows what happened, but I think this develops a healthy attitude to the Bible and not a naive one thanks for bringing this question to the forefront of our thoughs,

There's also a question of how polite/conservative/watered-down the biblical writers/editors themselves were. I think Bryan's research is unique because its on Ezekiel, and if any prophet can be compared to the insult comedy of Jeff Ross, it's Ezekiel. Also as love poetry, Song of Songs is unique in its sexual explicitness. But most of the Hebrew Bible (granted, I'm thinking of narrative, so there are genre issues to discuss), describes explicit sexual content in euphemistic ways. Tradition, as I have inherited it, says that this is because the writers were trying to be polite writers/editors of Scripture hoping to avoid the kind of laughter of school boys who hear "Balaam's ass". So if we assume the final form of Scripture as the thing we want to represent in translation, then there should be euphemized sex scenes (like Genesis' use of בוא 'enter' for sex) that are "covered up" for a reason. Consider euphemisms that make a point, like the use of "feet" in Ruth 3 (I don't think Boaz was a horny old man, I think the writer makes a Hebrew pun). If one explains the euphemism, then the joke is lost. The problem is that people don't/can't tap into the ancient culture and so often miss such euphemisms. Consider Ham seeing "his father's nakedness" in Genesis 9. Recent scholarship suggests that this is a euphemism for Ham raping his mother (I'll find JBL article for reference in a bit...lemme finish ranting), hence the harsh curse. While it would represent Ezekiel to use explicit sexual language in translation, it would not represent Genesis consistently. So perhaps Ezekiel is Jeff Ross and Genesis is Bill Cosby. They both can address the full spectrum of life, but Ross will do it with F-words and misogyny... like Ezekiel. But then we get back to our skopos and remember that one translation doesn't ft all. So the question is, what and who is your translation for? Will the jokes go over their head or over their house? Can suitable relevant modern jokes be used in translation? Or do we kill the joke and explain it? Or do we allow for appropriate "covering up" for the sake of kids and newbies and teach them the jokes along the way? Fortunately in English, there's a Bible for all of the above.

This is an excellent conversation that has been very helpful to me. Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. The original text is complex and varied, as are the needs of particular receptor audiences. No one approach will cover all cases, and there may be as many tailored approaches as there are texts. So in that sense, any discussion of Ezekiel is unique as regards its sexually explicit nature. However, my larger argument is that the way Ezekiel is handled (more or less carefully and apologetically) is symptomatic of a larger problem in which the sensibilities and commitments of the readers have too much control over what the text becomes in translation. (Skopos is the positive term for this dynamic, and I guess I am at root questioning the ethical neutrality of functionalism; "ideological constraint" is the term that I have been using instead.)