Indeed. :godisgood:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Vulgarity in translation
- Thread starter Greektim
- Start date
Indeed. :godisgood:
I want to make a couple of technical points here. First of all, in lingistics the words we are discussing are called "taboo words." Here is a definition: "a word known to speakers but avoided in some, most, or all forms or contexts of speech, for reasons of religion, decorum, politeness, etc." (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, by P. H. Matthews, p. 400). Sociolinguistics is well aware, then, that some words carry great cultural baggage among decent (even if non-Christian) people. This seems to be something that some of the Baptists on the BB are not aware of.
Secondly, in secular translation theory, advocates of what is called polysystem theory emphasize something call norms. A norm is "a social notion of correctness or appropriateness, one that states (or expects) what acceptable translations should look like, thus influencing the decisions taken by translators" (Key Terms in Translation Studies, by Giuseppe Palumbo, p. 79). Secular translators by and large, pay close attention to what is normal discourse in the target culture. Taboo words are not normal discourse. They are abnormal. So to use a taboo word in a Bible translation is, to me, beyond the pale.
I once talked to a Japanese Buddhist salesman at our front door, and we got around to discussing the Bible. (My job!) He made the point that a holy book like the Bible should be translated in a dignified, respectable manner. If we were to use taboo words in our Japanese translation of the NT, it would be categorically rejected by the Japanese, both Christian and non-Christian--and rightly so. Yet here we are on the BB, discussing using gutter language in a Bible translation.
Secondly, in secular translation theory, advocates of what is called polysystem theory emphasize something call norms. A norm is "a social notion of correctness or appropriateness, one that states (or expects) what acceptable translations should look like, thus influencing the decisions taken by translators" (Key Terms in Translation Studies, by Giuseppe Palumbo, p. 79). Secular translators by and large, pay close attention to what is normal discourse in the target culture. Taboo words are not normal discourse. They are abnormal. So to use a taboo word in a Bible translation is, to me, beyond the pale.
I once talked to a Japanese Buddhist salesman at our front door, and we got around to discussing the Bible. (My job!) He made the point that a holy book like the Bible should be translated in a dignified, respectable manner. If we were to use taboo words in our Japanese translation of the NT, it would be categorically rejected by the Japanese, both Christian and non-Christian--and rightly so. Yet here we are on the BB, discussing using gutter language in a Bible translation.
Concerning the meaning of skubalon, here is an excellent blog post: http://www.leithart.com/archives/002863.php
The classical Greek scholar found it occurring 211 times in ancient Greek literature. Of those times 98, almost half, are in medical literature. This indicates that it is definitely not a taboo word, a vulgarity. The scholar further noted that it does not occur in documents where vulgarity is expected, such as in the Greek comedies.
In my own library, I note that it does not occur in my copy of Xenophon's Anabasis, a war history in which it might be expected to occur. (There is a glossary in the back with all the words.) This is not conclusive, since the Anabasis was written about 4 centuries before Christ, nor is any other reference to classical Greek literature, since the meaning of a word can change over the centuries. What is needed to be conclusive is a 1st century reference (which I assume some of the references by the scholar above are). It similarly does not occur in the first three books of Homer’s Iliad.
Daniel Wallace has an essay here in which he argues for skubalon as a vulgarity (this is probably the source of the NET Bible footnote): http://bible.org/article/brief-word-study-font-facegreekskuvbalonfont. Oddly enough, though Wallace concludes the word is a vulgarity, he doesn't give any conclusive 1st century vulgar usages of the word! He's a far better Greek scholar than I'll ever be, but I have to say this is poor lexical semantics on his part. (I'm assuming the definition he gives in this essay with the English vulgarities is his own, because I can't find it in any lexicons.)
What Wallace does give is a quote on 1st century usage from Moises Silva about a usage that is clearly NOT vulgar! So proper lexicology would be aimed at a non-taboo meaning at that point.
The classical Greek scholar found it occurring 211 times in ancient Greek literature. Of those times 98, almost half, are in medical literature. This indicates that it is definitely not a taboo word, a vulgarity. The scholar further noted that it does not occur in documents where vulgarity is expected, such as in the Greek comedies.
In my own library, I note that it does not occur in my copy of Xenophon's Anabasis, a war history in which it might be expected to occur. (There is a glossary in the back with all the words.) This is not conclusive, since the Anabasis was written about 4 centuries before Christ, nor is any other reference to classical Greek literature, since the meaning of a word can change over the centuries. What is needed to be conclusive is a 1st century reference (which I assume some of the references by the scholar above are). It similarly does not occur in the first three books of Homer’s Iliad.
Daniel Wallace has an essay here in which he argues for skubalon as a vulgarity (this is probably the source of the NET Bible footnote): http://bible.org/article/brief-word-study-font-facegreekskuvbalonfont. Oddly enough, though Wallace concludes the word is a vulgarity, he doesn't give any conclusive 1st century vulgar usages of the word! He's a far better Greek scholar than I'll ever be, but I have to say this is poor lexical semantics on his part. (I'm assuming the definition he gives in this essay with the English vulgarities is his own, because I can't find it in any lexicons.)
What Wallace does give is a quote on 1st century usage from Moises Silva about a usage that is clearly NOT vulgar! So proper lexicology would be aimed at a non-taboo meaning at that point.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm going to do just one more post here unless someone answers my previous points. I'll list meanings from my lexicons, and this will show that not one single lexicon considers the word skubalon to be taboo or vulgar. Note in particular that one lexicon, Louw-Nida, does not even list dung as a meaning!
The Fribergs' Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT (my favorite): "anything that is to be treated as worthless and thrown out, translated according to the context dung, rubbish, garbage, offscouring" (accessed through Bibloi 8.0 software)
Louw-Nida: “worthless or unwanted material that is rejected and normally thrown out — ‘rubbish, litter, trash.’” (accessed through Bibloi 8.0 software)
BAGD: "refuse, rubbish, leavings, dirt, dung." It then gives the plural ta skubala as "specif. of human excrement" (p. 758). Note that Phil. 3:8 does not have the article, so to me it's a stretch to make it have to mean "dung."
Abbot-Smith: "refuse, especially dung" (p. 410)
Middle Liddell: "dung, filth, refuse. (Said to be derived from eV kunaV balein.)" (p. 641)
Thayer's (accessed through e-Sword 10.0.5 software) says, "1) any refuse, as the excrement of animals, offscourings, rubbish, dregs 1a) of things worthless and detestable"
Souter’s A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek NT: “sweepings, refuse, especially dirt, dung (popularly used of the human skeleton” (p. 237)
So, there is no evidence in the lexicons that the word must be translated "dung" in Philippians, and every evidence that "trash" or "rubbish" is an excellent translation.
The Fribergs' Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT (my favorite): "anything that is to be treated as worthless and thrown out, translated according to the context dung, rubbish, garbage, offscouring" (accessed through Bibloi 8.0 software)
Louw-Nida: “worthless or unwanted material that is rejected and normally thrown out — ‘rubbish, litter, trash.’” (accessed through Bibloi 8.0 software)
BAGD: "refuse, rubbish, leavings, dirt, dung." It then gives the plural ta skubala as "specif. of human excrement" (p. 758). Note that Phil. 3:8 does not have the article, so to me it's a stretch to make it have to mean "dung."
Abbot-Smith: "refuse, especially dung" (p. 410)
Middle Liddell: "dung, filth, refuse. (Said to be derived from eV kunaV balein.)" (p. 641)
Thayer's (accessed through e-Sword 10.0.5 software) says, "1) any refuse, as the excrement of animals, offscourings, rubbish, dregs 1a) of things worthless and detestable"
Souter’s A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek NT: “sweepings, refuse, especially dirt, dung (popularly used of the human skeleton” (p. 237)
So, there is no evidence in the lexicons that the word must be translated "dung" in Philippians, and every evidence that "trash" or "rubbish" is an excellent translation.
You're welcome, and God bless! :wavey: