6. Cultural Issues in Translation
Chapter 6: Cultural Issues in Translation
A missionary in Spain relates an incident where, after a delicious meal at a restaurant, a visiting American friend tried to request “a doggie bag.” Using the little Spanish he knew, he asked for “una bolsa de perro” (lit., “a bag of dog”). The perplexed waiter wanted to please his customers but had no idea what the man was asking for. Did he mean a bag full of dog pieces? A tote bag for dogs? A bag made of dog skin? The first problem was that the English idiom “doggie bag” cannot be translated literally into Spanish. But the greater problem was that in Spain people simply do not take food home from restaurants. There is no right way to ask for a doggie bag because it isn’t socially acceptable to do so.
This story illustrates the fact that language and culture are closely bound together. Translation always involves more than just resolving linguistic differences. It also means crossing the cultural boundaries that divide two worlds. The language of the Bible is steeped in the cultures of the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world. To reproduce God’s Word effectively, translators must keep one eye on the world of the text and one on the modern world. In chapter 4 we touched on some of the linguistic and cultural issues related to the idioms and metaphors of Scripture. Here we will survey other cultural challenges translators face.
Historical and Cultural Background
Readers approach the Bible from a variety of backgrounds. Some have a great deal of knowledge about the culture and history of the Bible. Others approach the text as relative novices. Translators of contemporary English Bible versions generally assume a basic knowledge of places and things in the biblical world. For example, place names like Israel, Jerusalem, Samaria, Assyria, Babylon, and so on are given without explanation, although Bibles often come with maps. Similarly, the identity of ethnic peoples (Hittites, Philistines, Edomites, Samaritans, etc.) and religious groups (priests, Levites, Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.) are not usually defined. Readers are expected to acquire this kind of general background knowledge by reading through the Bible or from outside sources such as sermons, notes in a study Bible, commentaries, Bible dictionaries, or Bible encyclopedias.
Traditional Bible Language
Some language traditionally used in Bible versions, though familiar to most churchgoers, may be unknown to an unchurched person or to a new Bible reader. We use the word “traditional” here because these terms are not necessarily more literal or formal equivalent, but have become familiar through the long tradition of English Bible translation, especially the KJV.
Functional equivalent translators sometimes seek more common, “everyday” language. The NCV, for example, consistently uses “followers” for the traditional “disciples” 
, and the CEV uses “Jewish meeting place” for “synagogue” 
. The term “covenant” is rendered “promise” or “agreement” in some functional equivalent versions (CEV, GW, NCV); others retain “covenant” (NLT, GNT). Israel’s “tabernacle” — the portable temple in the wilderness — is identified in some versions as “the Tent” (GNT; cf. CEV, GW) or “the Holy Tent” (NCV); “tabernacle” is retained in the NLT, TNIV, NET, HCSB, and all the formal equivalent versions.
The traditional designation “scribes” (grammateis [KJV, RSV, NASU, NRSV, ESV, REB, NAB, NJB]) does not make clear the nature of this first-century Jewish profession, so many versions render the Greek term as “teachers of the law” (TNIV, GNT), “experts in the law” (NET), “teachers of religious law” (NLT), or “teachers of the Law of Moses” (CEV). The “chief priests” (archiereis), the upper echelon of the Jerusalem priesthood, is translated as “leading priests” in the NLT and NCV. The “Sanhedrin” (synedrion), the Jewish high court, is rendered by functional equivalent versions as the “council” (GNT, CEV, GW), “high council” (NLT), or “Jewish council” (NCV). The mediating versions use “Sanhedrin” (NIV, TNIV, NET, NAB, NJB, HCSB). Curiously, the formal equivalent versions use “council” (NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASU), presumably imitating the KJV, which itself used “council.” Here is an unusual case where the mediating versions are more “literal” than the formal equivalent ones.
Implicit and Explicit Background Information
Contemporary Bible versions sometimes make explicit what was implicit to the original readers. This may be as simple as adding a clarifying word. Matthew 3:13 (TNIV) reads, “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.” The NET Bible, together with most functional equivalent versions, clarify that this is the Jordan “River” (NET, NLT, CEV, GW). Although the word “river” does not appear in the Greek, adding it helps to clarify the meaning.
In other cases, cultural customs are clarified for readers who may not understand them. In Genesis 37:29 Reuben “tore his clothes” when he discovered that his brothers had sold Joseph as a slave (TNIV, NET, ESV). In Hebrew culture this was a sign of mourning or grief, so functional equivalent versions add that he tore his clothes “in grief” (NLT, GW) or “in sorrow” (CEV, GNT; cf. Mark 14:63). In Exodus 34:13 God commands Israel to “cut down the Asherah poles” of the Canaanites. Some functional equivalent versions clarify the nature of these poles. CEV has “tear down the sacred poles they use in the worship of the goddess Asherah” (cf. GW, GNT). NCV says simply “cut down their Asherah idols.”
In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, Jesus says that two men entered the temple to pray, “one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector” (Luke 18:10 TNIV). The NLT describes the latter as a “despised” tax collector. The purpose is to show how Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries —who hated tax collectors as Roman collaborators — would have heard his words. A few sentences later, we learn that the tax collector “beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner’ ” (Luke 18:13 TNIV). Again the NLT clarifies that he beat his chest “in sorrow.” What was implicit for the original readers is made explicit for modern readers.
Some might object to these expansions, since the words “despised” or “in sorrow” do not appear in the Greek text. While this is true, the meaning that they convey was part of the author’s intention and would have been immediately recognized by the original readers. Again we are faced with the dilemma of whether to reproduce the form or the meaning of the original text. If the goal of translation is to transfer as much of the meaning as possible, then implied meaning must be taken into account for readers who would not normally recognize it.
Of course, care must be exercised here, since it is possible to introduce the wrong meaning. The first edition of the NLT (1996) identified the tax collector as “dishonest” rather than “despised.” This was inaccurate, since nothing in the parable suggests the man was cheating people. Calling him “dishonest” might also imply that his repentance was insincere, which is the opposite of Jesus’ point.
The challenge for translators is to determine how much implicit background material to provide. If too little is given, readers may miss important nuances of meaning; if too much, the translation becomes a commentary. (Since all translation involves interpretation, there is always a fine line between commentary and translation.) In general, translators should include implicit information when there is a significant likelihood that their target audience will miss the cultural or historical significance of an action or statement. The goal should always be to allow the contemporary reader to hear the text as it was originally heard.
Cultural Connotations
Sometimes words or phrases carry cultural connotations that are not readily apparent to the modern reader. For example, in Matthew 9:9 – 10 Jesus calls Matthew to follow him and then attends a banquet at his home. Consider the beginning of the meal scene in several versions:
“while he was reclining in the house” (closest formal equivalent)
“as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house” (NASU)
“While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house” (TNIV)
“Matthew invited Jesus and his disciples to be his dinner guests” (NLT)
Which translation is most accurate? The closest formal equivalent, “reclining in the house,” leaves out much of the meaning that would have been evident to a first-century reader. The verb “reclining” does not mean simply resting but rather “eating a meal,” so the NASU adds that Jesus was reclining “at the table” (italics in the NASU are meant to show that these words are not in the Greek).
The posture itself has cultural implications. While common meals were eaten sitting down, “reclining” (on cushions around a low table) normally indicated a more formal banquet or dinner party. The TNIV therefore identifies this as a “dinner at Matthew’s house.” The NLT goes further, mentioning Matthew’s invitation and Jesus and the disciples as “dinner guests.” Dinner parties in the ancient world were rituals of social status, and in this passage the Pharisees object because Jesus, a respected rabbi, is dining with despised tax collectors and other sinners (v. 11). In cases like this, translators must decide how much cultural context to provide and how much to leave for the reader to work out.
There are many examples where cultural or religious connotations may not be obvious to the modern reader. In the Gospels evil spirits or demons are sometimes referred to as “unclean spirits” (akatharta pneumata; Matt. 10:1; Mark 1:27; 3:11, etc.). “Unclean” in this sense has nothing to do with hygiene. These are not “dirty” demons, but religiously impure or defiled spirit beings standing in opposition to God’s purity and holiness. Formal equivalent versions generally retain “unclean spirits”; most functional equivalent versions use “evil spirits.” The former risks miscommunication with the modern reader; the latter loses some of the religious context, where ritual purity and defilement were important concerns. Readers can benefit by using both types of versions.
Jews or Jewish Leaders?
The Greek term Ioudaioi is notoriously difficult to translate because of its historical, cultural, and social connotations. In the New Testament the word can refer to (1) ethnic Jews, (2) Judeans (i.e., Jews from Judea), or (3) the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem.
Especially in the Gospel of John, the term often refers to the religious leaders who opposed Jesus. For example, in John 9:22 the parents of a blind man healed by Jesus are reluctant to acknowledge the healing “because they were afraid of the Jews” (NIV). Ioudaioi here obviously refers to the religious leaders, not all Jews (the parents themselves are Jews, as are Jesus and his disciples). The term is translated “Jewish leaders” here and in similar contexts in the NET, TNIV, NLT, and CEV (cf. GNT, NCV; footnotes in HCSB). Of course this issue is particularly sensitive because of the history of anti-Semitism, where passages like this have sometimes been misused to justify violence against Jews.
Three factors further complicate this issue. First, it is not always easy to determine the meaning of the word in each context, and the versions above differ somewhat on when they use “Jews” and when they use “Jewish leaders.” Second, there is a sense in which John does hold the Jewish people of Jerusalem responsible for the rejection of the Messiah, since they followed their leaders. While this does not justify using “Jews” in every case, it does complicate its interpretation. Third, John wrote his Gospel at a time when Jews and Christians were increasingly in conflict over their religious differences. Behind the language of “Jesus versus the Jews” in this Gospel is the conflict in John’s day between the church and the synagogue.
In light of these complications, the best recourse for translators is to determine on a case-by-case basis the primary sense of the term in each context and to translate accordingly.
Euphemisms
A euphemism is an indirect or culturally appropriate way of saying something that might otherwise be viewed as too direct, unpleasant, or offensive. In English we sometimes say that someone “passed away” rather than that he or she “died.” “He went to the bathroom” is an American way of saying “he urinated” or “he defecated”; the British say “he went to the toilet.” To “make love” or “sleep together” means to have sexual intercourse.
Most cultures use euphemisms. In Hebrew, “to cover your feet” means to go to the bathroom. To “know a woman” is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. The “way of women” (Gen. 31:35; cf. ESV, NRSV, NASU) refers to a woman’s monthly period (cf. TNIV, HCSB, NET, NAB, etc.). To “touch a woman” is a Greek euphemism for sexual intercourse (1 Cor. 7:1). To “fall asleep” can mean to die (Acts 13:36; 1 Cor. 12:20; 15:51). Some scholars believe that the “vessel” Paul speaks about in 1 Thessalogan and so does not refer metaphorically either to a man’s “body” (NIV, TNIV, NLT, NJB, ESV) or to his “wife” (NAB, CEV, GNT, GW).
There are three main ways translators can handle euphemisms. They can (1) translate them literally; (2) translate them directly (describe the action without a euphemism); or (3) use a parallel euphemism in the receptor language. This third is usually the best option. The KJV and NJB translate 1 Sam uel 24:3 literally, saying Saul went into a cave “to cover his feet.” This makes no sense to most readers, so other versions use the English euphemism “to relieve himself” (TNIV, NASU, ESV, NET, NLT, NCV, GW, GNT, CEV). The NKJV has “to attend to his needs” and NAB, “to ease nature.”
In Genesis 4:1 some formal equivalent versions retain the euphemism, “Adam knew Eve his wife” (RSV, ESV, NKJV; cf. NRSV). Others translate directly. The NLT reads “had sexual relations with his wife,” and GNT, “had intercourse with his wife.” Still others use an English euphemism: “made love to” (TNIV, GW); “had relations with” (NASU); “had marital relations with” (NET). The HCSB, trying for the best of both worlds, renders “Adam knew his wife Eve intimately.” This doesn’t quite work since it is not a common euphemism for sexual relations, implying instead intimate knowledge or an emotional bond.
Some euphemisms carry cultural connotations that translators may want to retain. The Hebrew idiom “to lie down (or ‘sleep’) with his ancestors” means to die and be buried. Culturally the idiom may go back to the practice whereby a person’s body would be allowed to decay in a tomb and then the bones were collected and placed in a common ancestral tomb. It is related to another Hebrew idiom, “gathered to his ancestors,” which also means to die (cf. Judg. 2:10; 2 Kings 22:10). In 1 Kings 2:10 the RSV and ESV follow the KJV in translating the first idiom as, “Then David slept with his fathers.” This has two problems. First, in English the idiom “slept with” commonly refers to sexual intercourse; second, “fathers” is an archaic way to refer to ancestors.
If the Hebrew idiom “lie down with” (or “sleep with”) is a dead metaphor (see chap. 4, pp. 67 – 69, for this term), then it should be translated simply “David died” or “David died and was buried.” GNT says simply, “David died and was buried,” and NET, “David passed away” (with a note giving the literal form). If it is a live metaphor, then translators should seek to capture the cultural link to ancestral burial. Notice how various versions handle the euphemism:
“Then David rested with his fathers” (NIV, HCSB, NKJV)
“Then David rested with his ancestors” (TNIV, NAB)
“David lay down in death with his ancestors” (GW)
“Then David died and was buried with his ancestors” (NLT)
“Then David joined his ancestors” (Message)
Weights, Measures, and Money
Certain biblical items are unique to a cultural context and so provide difficulties for translators. This is especially so with weights, measures, and money. Most Bible versions provide a table of biblical weights and measures in an appendix, identifying modern equivalents. But how should these items be translated in the text?
Weights and Measures
For weights and measures, there are two main options for translators: (1) provide a Hebrew or Greek “transliteration” (= spell out the Greek or Hebrew word with English letters), usually with a footnote giving a modern equivalent, or (2) translate using a modern equivalent (sometimes with a footnote giving the Hebrew or Greek transliteration). Consider the difference between the TNIV and the HCSB at 1 Kings 5:11:
“Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand cors of wheat as food for his household, in addition to twenty thousand baths of pressed olive oil.” (TNIV)
“Solomon provided Hiram with 100,000 bushels of wheat as food for his household and 110,000 gallons of beaten oil.” (HCSB)
Both provide explanatory footnotes. While the TNIV gives the Hebrew measurements “cors” and “baths” in the text and their modern equivalents in the footnote, the HCSB reverses this. Formal equivalent versions and mediating ones (TNIV, NET, NAB) tend to follow the first option; functional equivalent versions the second. Translators must decide whether they will be culturally more precise (option one) or immediately clear to readers (option two). As with all translation decisions, the goals of accuracy and clarity must be balanced and the target audience kept in mind.
Money
As with weights and measures, words for money can either be transliterated or replaced with modern equivalents. Most formal equivalent and mediating versions transliterate Hebrew and Greek words like shekels, talents, denarii, and minas. Functional equivalent versions occasionally refer to “dollars,” but more commonly speak in general terms of silver or gold coins. One exception is that small copper coins like the kodrantesm, assarion, and lepton (Matt. 5:26; 10:29; Luke 12:59) are identified as “pennies” in most versions (NRSV, ESV, TNIV, NLT, etc.). This works since “penny” has come to mean something of low value in American English (“that’s only worth pennies”).
The problem with using modern equivalents for money is that its value changes over time. This is particularly evident in the KJV. In Luke 19, the KJV translated Greek mina (worth about three month’s wages) as a (British) “pound” (worth under two dollars today). Strangely, both the RSV and the NRSV follow the KJV in using “pound,” perhaps because of the traditional title, “the parable of the pounds” (Luke 19:11 – 27). The NKJV and ESV correct this to “minas.” Similarly, in Matthew 20:2 the KJV rendered denarius — worth a day’s wage — as a “penny” (cheap labor indeed!). These examples show the danger of using contemporary units of money that can change drastically over time.
In some cases a third option is to provide the relative value of the money. For example, a denarius in the first century was equivalent to the average wage of a day laborer. In the parable of the workers in the vineyard, most versions translate denarius literally: “He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day” (Matt. 20:2). The NLT, however, reads, “He agreed to pay the normal daily wage,” and the CEV “the usual amount for a day’s work” (cf. NRSV, GW).
The TNIV does something similar with the talent (talanton), a large unit of money worth about six thousand denarii or approximately twenty years’ work for a day laborer. In the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23 – 34), the master forgives his servant an impossibly huge debt of ten thousand talents (200,000 years worth of work!). The servant in turn refuses to forgive his fellow servant a trivial debt of a hundred denarii. Most versions translate literally as ten thousand talents (NIV, NET, HCSB, NRSV, ESV, NASU).
This translation, however, creates two problems. First, if readers do not check the footnotes, they will miss the extreme hyperbole in Jesus’ words. “Ten thousand” sounds manageable. Second, the word “talent” today commonly means an “ability” or “gift” (a meaning that arose from Matt. 25:14 – 30), which could result in misinterpretation for readers. Other versions therefore use a modern equivalent such as “millions of dollars” (NLT, GW, GNT). The TNIV uses “ten thousand bags of gold,” since the point is not the precise amount, but the impossibly large contrast between God’s forgiveness and our own.
Conclusion
In this chapter we have seen that getting the cultural context right is another challenge translators face. This task is complicated by the fact that different readers come to the text with different levels of knowledge. As a general rule, background material should be supplied by translators (1) when it relates directly to the meaning of the text (without distracting from the main point), (2) when it would have been immediately apparent to the original readers, and (3) when it is likely to be missed by the target audience. The goal, as always, should be to transport readers to the world of the text so that they can understand what was originally heard.
For Further Reading
Beekman, J., and J. Callow. Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.
Hill, Harriet. The Bible at Cultural Crossroads: From Translation to Communication. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2006.
Nida, Eugene A., and William D. Reyburn. Meaning across Cultures. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1981.
Wendland, Ernst R. The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation. London: United Bible Societies, 1987.