Don't jump to conclusions. I'm not going to be polemical. Deuteronomy 25:11 is a funny verse when you read it in different translations. The ESV translates it, "When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts." I italicized "private parts" because when you look at how different modern translations give us this verse, they all sound pretty much the same until it gets to talking about a guy's junk. It's "private parts" in the ESV, the NIV, the Amplified Bible, and the CEV. It's "genitals" in the NASB, the HCSB, the NKJV, and the Message. The NLT translates it "testicles" and my favourite English translation (i.e., the one that most obscures the meaning of the word, thus being the funniest) is from our not-so-modern translation the KJV, which renders the word, "the secrets." To add to the interesting translations, in French, the verse is translated « Lorsque des hommes se querelleront ensemble, l'un avec l'autre, si la femme de l'un s'approche pour délivrer son mari de la main de celui qui le frappe, si elle avance la main et saisit ce dernier par les parties honteuses » (Louis Segond). Take my word for it, it means the same thing as the English versions. Except this version's translation of a guy's junk is different; « honteuse » is the French adjective for shameful, or disgraced, or ashamed. At first it appeared this was a huge sociological suggestion at how the French viewed sex (i.e., as it being shameful), but it turns out the word actually literally means "that excites shame" in the Hebrew. This made me wish that I knew something about Hebrew, but I don't, so I can't go any further in inferring what this implies about Jewish thought concerning sex and its goodness. It's still funny, though, that the KJV translates a man's genitals as "the secrets."
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Hahaha, I find it funny how you refer to it as a "guy's junk"
I thought I'd mix it up. I wonder what the Word on the Street version would have used.
Andrea, I appreciate that you comment on my blog for most posts. Thank you.
I would rather be discreet than overt when it comes to such language in Scripture. Interesting observation on the Hebrew script. I wonder if the cultural thought about sexuality was seen in a way where such words were not openly used in public writings or speaking in the time/culture when the KJV was translated.
I think it may show that those that interpretted the Scripture into the KJV were less prone to speak and (arguably) think (whether by personal sin or combating the problem at large (viz. their families, churches, etc.), or both) about such matters in a public arena. I think in todays Western culture we've become especially desensitized to speaking and writing (and photographing and videotaping)about anything related to sexuality.
This post does not mean I am a absolute proponent of the KJV. Nor am I saying I am against other translations.
"If she grabs him by the secrets . . ."
"Well, KJV, what is she grabbing him by."
"It's a secret."
"So, KJV, a woman's being commanded to not do something that's secret to her . . ."
Anyway, Mr. (or Mrs. or Miss, but certainly not Ms.) Anonymous, (not at all to say that you're implying this) this post wasn't meant to critique different translations. A better title for this post would have been "'Junk' Translation" or "Translation of 'Junk,'" but I wanted to pull people into what they would think was a polemical post, only to find out that it wasn't polemical at all. Let me spell it out even more explicitly, I was egging people on.
Second, I do think it's okay to laugh at older days' language. It's funny that the Brits were calling genitals back in the early 1600s "the secrets."
Third, to now comment on Bible translation, I think we should translate what the original languages say. For example, in Matthew 25: 21, 23, 26, 30 the word "servant" appears, but it should be translated "slave." If translating what the original says confounds the meaning then it needs to be helped (per se). For example, in English, a double negative is negated (e.g., "I didn't unknowingly do it" means "I did it knowingly"), where in Greek, a double negative is for emphasis (kind of like Peter Pan saying, "I'm never, never, never going to grow up"). So, when a double negative appears in Greek, and it happens in a way that, if translated to English would be negated as a double negative, then that needs to be helped (i.e., paraphrased a bit). But we know what a slave is, and we know what a servant is (actually, personally, I have a better idea in my mind of what a slave is than what a servant is), so we should translate doulos as "slave" and not "servant."
I don't know Hebrew. I cannot evaluate what Moses had written (because context often gives the meaning of a word that has a wider range of meanings, e.g., consider the words permit, content, present, and wind; or consider a word like kill, where it can mean something insignificant like killing a conversation, to something of great significane, murder). But if Moses used a word that, in context, meant testicles as specifically as that word is used today, then the translations should translate it "testicles"; if it wasn't too profane for God, it can't be too profane for us.
Hopefully this makes sense.
good third point. I never thought of that.
Post a Comment