Oh σκύβαλα – sanitising the Bible
Dan Wallace, on Parchment and Pen has an interesting post on Pauline Scatology, in which he can’t quite bring himself to say “shit”, even though he thinks it’s the best translation of σκύβαλα (refuse, dung, garbage – Phil 3:8). I’m personally not entirely convinced (see Sirach 27:4) though it’s quite possible. But I do think his subsidiary point is well taken, that there is more abusive language in the Bible than we think. (His main point is how to reconcile the texts that tell us not to be abusive in our speech with the texts that clearly are)
Another example he gives is Galatians 5:12, where the NRSV gets it about right
I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves! (NRSV).
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! (TNIV – a little coy)
Actually, my favourite, because it sounds so English (and humourous – Lingamish please note) is the original Jerusalem Bible:
Tell those who are disturbing you I would like to see the knife slip
I have a recollection that the earliest printings of the UK Good News Bible (unfortunately I can’t find mine) went a step too far for churches, and they changed it in subsequent editions, but they rendered 1 Samuel 20:30 as Saul saying to Jonathan “You bastard!” Others may still have such a copy to check my recollection. Others again (are you there John Hobbins?) can tell me whether that’s a fair translation. All except the partially colloquial New Jerusalem Bible (”Son of a rebellious slut”) seem to have toned it down considerably to something no English speaker would actually say.
We do seem surprised when insults (especially rude ones) appear in the Bible. I don’t know why, and I don’t really have Dan Wallace’s difficulty with reconciling them with the verses that tell us not to abuse one another. Hey, it’s human. I still recall myself baffled by one argument I heard for the North Galatian hypothesis. “Paul,” said the lecturer seriously, “would never have called people living in the south of the Roman province ‘Galatians’ it would have been very rude.” I found myself asking what exactly he thought Paul was being when he said “Foolish Galatians” if not being rude.
Naughty language and ride words in the Holy Bible? Some may find it shocking, but personally, I find it a great comfort.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Despite being a linguist for whom all words are just lexical information I am very prim and have a hard time saying any naughty words in public. Just among the guys anything goes but in mixed company I’m very Victorian. What to do in translation? I’m afraid you have to sanitize things a bit.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
My 1976 British Good News Bible indeed has “You bastard!” in 1 Samuel 20:30. I guess the translation issue there would be whether such a statement, from Saul to Jonathan, should be understood as Saul actually suggesting that Jonathan is not his son. I suspect that “You son of a b***h!” would be a better dynamic equivalent, but I will keep the “***” in there as I know some Americans find this word even more offensive than your rendering of σκύβαλα.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I translate skubala as “human filth” in Philippians 3.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Saul’s epithet for Jonathan is indeed very strong language. An accurate translation would try to capture the fact that Saul heaps abuse on his son by heaping abuse on his mother. This is a very old and effective means of making someone absolutely miserable.
It’s as if Saul is disowning Jonathan by saying that he is the son of a two-timing female dog, i.e., no son of his.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Doesn’t Paul do what Jesus did, playing with feminine words to make a hilarious sharp point? Here’s the NET Bible notes on Philippians chapter 3,2-3 (just before that “s-word,” or “σ-word,” σκύβαλα):
“2sn Dogs is a figurative reference to false teachers whom Paul regards as just as filthy as dogs. [now that's just low down dirty -- and doesn't βλεπετετουςκυναςβλεπετε pun on σκύβαλα?]
3tn Grk “beware of the mutilation.” [ouch!! keep reading]
4tn There is a significant wordplay here in the Greek text. In v. 2 a rare, strong word is used to describe those who were pro-circumcision (κατατομή, katatomh, “mutilation”; see BDAG 528 s.v.), while in v. 3 the normal word for circumcision is used (περιτομή, peritomh; see BDAG 807 s.v.). Both have τομή (the feminine form of the adjective τομός [tomo"], meaning “cutting, sharp”) as their root; the direction of the action of the former is down or off (from κατά, kata), hence the implication of mutilation or emasculation, while the direction of the action of the latter is around (from περί, peri). The similarity in sound yet wide divergence of meaning between the two words highlights in no uncertain terms the differences between Paul and his opponents. [ouch and quite un-Victorian proper of the Apostle]“
September 26th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
One of the problems with accurate rendering of taboo language is that many folk will have set their browser controls at a level that would exclude the article. The situation becomes all the more subject to reputational risk for churches that record or make MP3 downloads available;the Ship of Fools website has a few amusing, if not Anglo-saxonic, sermon extracts already held for posterity. Having heard a sermon including Phil 3.8, this year, amongst the wags, it is now referred to as ‘That s**t sermon.’
As to Gal 5.12, some other renderings vary from misleading to being on track.
The Contemporary English Version offers ‘I wish that everyone who is upsetting you would not only get circumcised, but would cut off much more!’ - a tad tentative leaving very little for the imagination.
Young’s Literal Translation suggests ‘O that even they would cut themselves off who are unsettling you!’ - I assume a total mistranslation.
In a similar vein, New Life Version says ‘I wish those who are so willing to cut your bodies would complete the job by cutting themselves off from you’ – nice, blunt, and in your face; there’s no mistaking the drift, but the invitation to self-exclusion is only part of the point St Paul was making.
The Message, a transliteration, asks ‘Why don’t these agitators, obsessive as they are about circumcision, go all the way and castrate themselves!’ - but the ‘all the way’ is probably further that Eugene Peterson represents.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
John, thanks. That honour background is interesting, though clearly poses translation problems. As Peter says: “Son of a bitch” may be the best option. The only English insult involving mothers doesn’t capture the right emphasis (and I’m not going to print it!).
On the pun front, I agree that Paul is punning on κατατομή and περιτομή but I’m entirely unconvinced that there’s a pun in Βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας, βλέπετε τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας. The phrasing demands a pause to separate the first from the second warning, the sounds don’t match up and the verse is too far apart from the reference to σκύβαλα.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
If a church’s reputation depends on it not using an accurate translation of an apostle’s words, or even more if it depends on the fact that it has used these words not being known on the Internet, then surely it deserves to lose any reputation. Of course the church doesn’t need any reputation among the respectable, rather it should join the apostle in being regarded as “the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world” (1 Corinthians 4:13, TNIV), not σκύβαλα but words probably just as offensive in the original.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Thanks for the comment, Doug: “I’m entirely unconvinced that there’s a pun in Βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας, βλέπετε τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας.” I know that’s quite a stretch phrasally and phonologically both, as you point out.
But, many scholars have said this: that semantically τοὺς κύνας is related to σκύβαλα. The punny-ness here, if any, is in the κύ. On the semantic, meaning, side alone, Marvin R. Vincent (in Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament) says this of the dog-dung connection in Phil. 3,5-7:
“All things (ta panta). Collectively. All things mentioned in vers. 5-7. Dung (skubala). Rev., refuse. Either excrement or what is thrown away from the table; leavings. The derivation is uncertain. According to some it is a contraction from ejv kunav ballw to throw to the dogs.“
September 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I’m afraid I have to express a resounding scepticism about this. Not only is the etymology uncertain, but it wouldn’t be at all clear if anyone knew it, or if they did that a true or mythical etymology was so well known that a pun across such a distance would be picked up
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Doug, Not sure William Barclay is trustworthy, but he says: “Skubala has two meanings. In everyday language, it was popularly derived from kusi ballomena, which means that which is thrown to the dogs; and in medical language it means excrement (dung, as the Authorized Version translates it).”
But here’s some etymology from Homer’s mythology (replete with sexism):
Odyssey.12.86
τῆς ἤτοι φωνὴ μὲν ὅση σκύλακος νεογιλλῆς
Her voice is as loud as a newborn puppy’s,
Odyssey.20.14
ὡς δὲ κύων ἀμαλῇσι περὶ σκυλάκεσσι βεβῶσα
As a dog stands over her tender puppies
Odyssey.7.216
οὐ γάρ τι στυγερῇ ἐπὶ γαστέρι κύντερον ἄλλο
for nothing else is more like a dog than the hateful belly,
Odyssey.11.427
ὣς οὐκ αἰνότερον καὶ κύντερον ἄλλο γυναικός,
So nothing else is more dreadful or more dog-like than a woman
Illiad.8.483
σκυζομένης ἀλέγω, ἐπεὶ οὐ σέο κύντερον ἄλλο.
care for your sulks; since there is nothing more shameless than you are.
(source: http://www.library.northwestern.edu/homer/)
October 11th, 2007 at 4:33 am
καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτῇ ἄφες πρῶτον χορτασθῆναι τὰ τέκνα οὐ γάρ ἐστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν
But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
Mark 7:27
ς κυ βαλ
August 11th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
[...] Paavali oli taitava retoorikko ja oppinut mies.2 Hän käyttää Raamattuun otetuissa kirjeissä sanaa “paska” vain kerran. Tosin muitakin rumia hän puhuu, kuten kertoo toivovansa, että ympärileikkaajan veitsi lipeäisi3 ja noh, eiköhän se ole selvää, mitä Paavali toivoo tapahtuvan. Tätäkin kohtaa kiltit kääntäjät ovat kaunistelleet.((http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/09/oh-%E1%BD%BB-sanitising-the-bible)) [...]