TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE
by
LINDSEY HOLT
B.A., Houghton College, 2017

Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN LINGUISTICS AND TRANSLATION
in the
FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

March 2023
© Lindsey Holt, 2023

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE
Abstract
The process of translating linguistic taboos in the Bible needs to evaluate the impact the taboo had on the
audience of the source language (SL) text, and the impact that a proposed translation will have on the
audience of the receptor language (RL) culture. This thesis proposes an approach with a focus on
questions and considerations for translators to utilize through the translation process. A concept may be
taboo in both the source and receptor languages, or it may be taboo in either the source or receptor
language. In order to provide an accurate, clear, natural, and appropriate translation for the community,
translators need to analyze the linguistic taboo expressions used in the SL text with a focus on emotional
impact of the expression on the SL audience. This impact needs to be considered as a factor when
translating for a RL and checking the translation in the RL community.

i

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

ii

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Data ............................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Overview of the paper .................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Studies in Bible Translation ........................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Theories of Translation ........................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Pragmatics Theories ................................................................................................................ 6
2.1.3 Specific Non-Taboo Translation Issues.................................................................................... 7
2.2 General Taboo & Sociolinguistics .................................................................................................. 7
2.2.1 Introduction to Sociolinguistics ............................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Popular Media on Swearing..................................................................................................... 8
2.2.3 X-phemism Formation ............................................................................................................ 9
2.2.4 Linguistics in Adjacent Disciplines.......................................................................................... 9
2.2.5 General Taboo Usage ............................................................................................................ 10
2.2.6 Taboos in Specific Languages ............................................................................................... 10
2.2.7 Anthologies on Taboos.......................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Biblical Studies ............................................................................................................................ 11
2.3.1 Commentaries & Dictionaries ............................................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Biblical Studies for Lay People ............................................................................................. 11
2.3.3 Studies on Specific Taboos / Specific Passages...................................................................... 12
2.4 Translation of Taboo Language .................................................................................................... 13
2.4.1 Translation of Taboo Language in the Bible .......................................................................... 13
2.4.2 Translation of Linguistic Taboo in Ancient Translations of the Bible ..................................... 14
2.4.3 Translation of Linguistic Taboo in Specific Translations of the Bible .................................... 14
2.4.4 Translation of Linguistic Taboo in the Quran......................................................................... 15
2.4.5 Translation of Taboo Language in Other Genres .................................................................... 16
3.0 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Translation Approach................................................................................................................... 19
3.2 X-Phemism Analysis ................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Text Selection .............................................................................................................................. 20
3.3.1 John 11:11 ............................................................................................................................ 21
3.3.2 Isaiah 64:6 ............................................................................................................................ 21
3.3.3 1 Kings 14:10........................................................................................................................ 22
3.3.4 Genesis 17:11........................................................................................................................ 22
3.3.5 Song of Songs 7:2 ................................................................................................................. 22
3.4 Source Text Analysis ................................................................................................................... 23
3.5 Receptor Culture Analysis ........................................................................................................... 23
4.0 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 John 11:11 ................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1.1 Exegesis ................................................................................................................................ 25
4.1.2 Translation Guidance ............................................................................................................ 28
4.2 Isaiah 64:6 ................................................................................................................................... 32
4.2.1 Exegesis ................................................................................................................................ 32
4.2.2 Translation Guidance ............................................................................................................ 36
4.3 1 Kings 14:10 .............................................................................................................................. 39
4.3.1 Exegesis ................................................................................................................................ 39
4.3.2 Translation Guidance ............................................................................................................ 42
4.4 Genesis 17:11 .............................................................................................................................. 45

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

iii

4.4.1 Exegesis ................................................................................................................................ 46
4.4.2 Translation Guidance ............................................................................................................ 48
4.5 Song of Songs 7:2 ........................................................................................................................ 52
4.5.1 Exegesis ................................................................................................................................ 52
4.5.2 Translation Guidance ............................................................................................................ 58
4.6 Discussion Summary ................................................................................................................... 61
5.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 63
5.1 Areas for Further Study................................................................................................................ 63
Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................... 65
Appendix A: .......................................................................................................................................... 72

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

1

1.0 Introduction
Taboo is an important feature of language that is sometimes overlooked in Bible translation.
When translating a linguistic taboo, translators need to evaluate the significance of the concept, and the
lexemes used in both the source language and receptor language, especially considering the connotative
meaning and emotional impact the language would have for the audience. Bower suggests that “the
emotional aspects of words are an inherent part of their semantic meanings and that the emotional
contexts for a word’s use or prohibition are stored along with its semantic and syntactic properties,” and
word taboos are tagged with situational meaning regarding their “arousal level, offensiveness, and
appropriateness.” 1 Greater attention needs to be paid to this issue in order to better equip translators to
provide an accurate, clear, natural, and appropriate translation for the community. This thesis will aim to
provide a framework for addressing the issue.
1.1 Definitions
In a broad sense, taboo refers to “the prohibition or avoidance in any society of behaviors
believed to be harmful” by causing stress or shame.2 In the study of language, linguistic taboos are both
words and their meanings which refer to “problematic areas of reality such as sexuality, ethnicity,
religion, economic status, aging, death, illness, or bodily functions, among others, and the expression of
these concepts.”3 Phenomena which build on these taboos, like profanity and insults, are also included in
the study of linguistic taboo.4 While taboo refers to a wide range of socially prohibited behaviors, Bible
translation is engaged through language (written or spoken). For this reason, this thesis will be limited to
considering linguistic taboos exclusively. A distinction also needs to be made between two aspects of
linguistic taboos: word taboos and concept taboos. Word taboos refer to taboos in a lexical sense,
specifically the “forbidden base terms.”5 These are the lexemes themselves which are taboo, regardless of

1

Gordon Bower in Allan, The Oxford Handbook, 81.
Wardhaugh, “Taboo and Euphemism,” 249.
3
Pedraza, Linguistic Taboo Revisited,1.
4
Pedraza. Linguistic Taboo Revisited, 1.
5
Miguel Casas Gómez, “Lexicon, discourse and cognition” in Pedraza, Linguistic Taboo Revisited, 19.
2

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

2

their connection to a concept taboo. On the other hand, concept taboos refer to the concept which is taboo,
not restricted to the words used to express it.6
Word taboos typically will not transfer cross-linguistically. A lexeme which expresses a concept
taboo (for example sleep with or intercourse in English expressing SEX) will often not translate directly.
Even if a lexeme with the same referential meaning is available, it’s likely that the situational meaning
will be different because of all the sociolinguistic factors. On the other hand, concept taboos can be
discussed cross-linguistically, especially those domains which are considered nearly universal (RELIGION,
SEX, BODILY FUNCTIONS, and DEATH).

Studies on free association and utterance latencies have suggested

that taboo concepts elicit heightened emotional responses. 7 The social context in these studies impacts the
expressions of the word taboos, but the concept taboos are demonstrated to be marked regardless of
context.
A concept (for example MENSTRUATION) may be taboo in both the source and receptor language,
but the sociolinguistic and pragmatic implications will make the transfer of the concepts challenging. Or it
may be taboo in either the source or receptor language, causing further translation complexities. This
paper will consider linguistic taboos to be any expression or concept with the potential to be taboo crosslinguistically, until proven not to be in both the source and receptor languages. If a concept is not taboo in
the source language but it is taboo in the receptor language, a translator is still advised to work through
the approach described in this paper in order to translate effectively.
1.2 Data
As this paper is largely theoretical, rather than studying a large data set, it will focus on a set of
five representative examples in order to demonstrate the approach recommended for translating linguistic
taboos in the Bible. The rationale behind the selection of these examples is described in more detail in

Miguel Casas Gómez, “Lexicon, discourse and cognition” in Pedraza, Linguistic Taboo Revisited, 19.
Jay, Why We Curse, 110. Studies referenced include Grosser and Laczek (1963), Motley and Camden (1985), and
Schill et al. (1970).
6
7

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

3

section 3.3 of this paper. The approach has also been simplified into a more accessible list of “Guiding
Questions” which are included as an appendix.
All English scripture references come from The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version
(1989) unless otherwise noted. All Hebrew text is Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia8, and Greek text is The
Greek New Testament, Fifth Revised Edition9.
1.3 Overview of the paper
Chapter 2 “Literature Review” provides an overview of literature available on the topic. It first
considers literature in three relevant disciplines: studies in Bible translation, sociolinguistics, and biblical
studies. The chapter concludes with my findings on the comprehensive topic of translating linguistic
taboos in the Bible. Chapter 3 “Methodology” provides brief background on the translation methodology
being assumed and the framework for analyzing taboo expressions and X-phemisms10, as presented by
Keith Allan and Kate Burridge.11 This is followed by an explanation for the five examples selected to
assess in chapter 4. Finally, I describe the approach suggested for analyzing linguistic taboos in the source
language and the receptor language. Chapter 4 “Discussion” uses the approach suggested in the
methodology chapter to analyze five examples of potential linguistic taboos in the Bible. These examples
attempt to take into account as many variations as possible. Each example provides an analysis of the
source language and recommendations for translating into the receptor language. In the analysis of the
source language, I aim to first provide a thorough background of the passage to give context for the
occurrence of the linguistic taboo, before a more specific analysis of the verse and expression itself.
Chapter 5 “Conclusion” offers a summary of my findings, suggestions for further research, and
recommendations for using the approach shared in this paper and the appendix.

8

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.
Aland, Aland, Karavidopoulos, Martini, and Metzger, eds. The Greek New Testament.
10
X-phemism refers to the forms expressions of linguistic taboos can take: euphemism (expressing a taboo
indirectly in order to avoid discomfort or shame), orthophemism (more direct form of expression, often using
technical language), and dysphemism (expressions of taboos which are intentionally offensive); these terms are
explained in further detail in Section 3.2 of this paper.
11
Allan and Burridge, Forbidden Words.
9

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

4

2.0 Literature Review
The subject of translating linguistic taboos in the Bible spans a few distinct disciplines, including
studies in Bible translation, sociolinguistics, and biblical studies. Each discipline has a range of literature
which informs the topic; however, no in-depth analysis on the specific topic has been produced.
Translation studies, and in particular, reflective research by Bible translation practitioners, provides
principles and values that are the foundation for Bible translation. Also relevant are studies in pragmatics
such as conceptual metaphor theory and speech act theory. Sociolinguistics has traditionally been the
resource for linguistic taboo, and has made great strides in the topic over the last 25 years. A most notable
development is Keith Allan’s concept of X-phemism, which describes the expressions of linguistic taboo
with an understanding of the emotional meaning included in a term. Adjacent disciplines include
cognitive linguistics and politeness. The field of biblical studies contributes detailed discussions on taboo
concepts in biblical cultures, providing the needed foundation for understanding the source text and
associated cultures. Some of these offer input on how to express these concepts in translation; however,
such advice is often made with limited consideration of the field of pragmatics.12
There is some literature available on translation of linguistic taboo. The majority of this focuses
on other forms of media like poetry, or programs produced for television, but the principles and problems
identified in these studies apply to biblical translation. There is also a large body of scholarly articles
addressing the topic of translating linguistic taboos in the Quran. While there are significant differences
between translating the Bible and translating the Quran, there are also important similarities for
translating these sacred texts. A few short articles have been written in recent decades on the specific
topic of translating linguistic taboo in the Bible, mostly identifying problematic passages and translations,
or introducing the topic for future research.
This literature review is organized according to the following topics:
2.1 Studies in Bible Translation
Translation is not a one-size-fits-all task; recommendations made in SIL’s Translator’s Notes and UBS’s
Handbooks are useful starting points, but cannot address all the possible pragmatic considerations for all the very
diverse languages spoken around the world.
12

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

5

2.1.1 Theories of Translation
2.1.2 Pragmatics Theories
2.1.3 Specific Non-Taboo Translation Issues
2.2 General Taboo & Sociolinguistics
2.2.1 Introduction to Sociolinguistics
2.2.2 Popular Media on Swearing
2.2.3 X-phemism Formation
2.2.4 Linguistics in Adjacent Disciplines
2.2.5 General Taboo Usage
2.2.6 Taboos in Specific Languages
2.2.7 Anthologies on Taboos
2.3 Biblical Studies
2.3.1 Commentaries & Dictionaries
2.3.2 Biblical Studies for Lay People
2.3.3 Studies on Specific Taboos / Specific Passages
2.4 Translation of Taboo Language
2.4.1 Translation of Taboo Language in the Bible
2.4.2 Translation of Linguistic Taboo in Ancient Translations of the Bible
2.4.3 Translation of Linguistic Taboo in Specific Translations of the Bible
2.4.4 Translation of Linguistic Taboo in the Quran
2.4.5 Translation of Taboo Language in Other Genres
2.1 Studies in Bible Translation
2.1.1 Theories of Translation
The field of translation studies is still fairly new, having started only in the 1950s and 1960s.
Over the decades, a number of different theories about translation have been developed. The field of Bible
translation has developed along a parallel trajectory. Many scholars credit Eugene A. Nida with some of
the first literature on the topic of Bible translation, including Toward a Science of Translating13 and The
Theory and Practice of Translation14. A key issue in translation theory and practice is that of equivalence.
Advocates for formal equivalence, such as Robert Alter15, prefer translations to closely follow the form of
the source text, sometimes considered word-for-word translation. Advocates of dynamic equivalence
prefer translations to focus on the meaning of the source text and convey it in more natural language,
sometimes considered concept-for-concept or meaning-based translation.

13

Nida, Toward a Science of Translating.
Nida, Theory and Practice of Translation.
15
Alter, Art of Bible Translation.
14

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

6

Mildred L. Larson’s work Meaning Based Translation16 will be used here as a foundation for the
purpose and process of translation. Chapters 1 through 11 offer a foundational understanding of the task
of translation, as well as the function and use of lexical items. This understanding provides the
background needed to analyze the function of a taboo expression in the source text and to assess its most
effective translation in the receptor language. Chapter 11 specifically addresses euphemism in translation,
offering the following advice, “The important thing is for the translator to recognize the euphemistic
nature of the source language expression, and then translate with an appropriate and acceptable
expression of the receptor language whether euphemistic or direct.”17 Chapter 13 provides further
discussion of situational context and connotation, and chapter 23 addresses the translation of metaphor.
2.1.2 Pragmatics Theories
Some additional linguistic theories in the area of pragmatics are also relevant to the discussion of
translating linguistic taboos. Conceptual Metaphor Theory refers to understanding one concept in terms of
another. The foundation for this theory comes from Lakoff and Johnson18 who suggest that metaphor is
used on the conceptual level to understand relationships between concepts; for example, TIME is
VALUABLE

being used to understand the value a society places on time.

Speech Act Theory focuses on the actions involved in communication, identifying three different
aspects to a speech act. The locutionary act is the expression and its apparent meaning, including all
syntactic and semantic values. The illocutionary act is the intended result of the locutionary act, such as
asking a question, even if the speech is in the form of a statement. The perlocutionary act is the actual
result produced by the speech act. Along with other resources, Cruse19 introduces this theory in the fourth
chapter of the text.
Relevance Theory suggests that effective communication intends to communicate as much
information is necessary, including implicit information not immediately obvious on the semantic value

16

Larson, Meaning-Based Translation.
Larson, Meaning-Based Translation, 127.
18
Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By.
19
Cruse, Meaning in Language.
17

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

7

of a speech act alone. Presented by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson in Relevance: Communication and
Cognition20, Relevance Theory is a communication model which consistently takes into account not only
linguistic content, but also the context in which any given communication event occurs – including
worldview, assumptions, and audience expectations. This context is a is a critical component in
understanding and translating linguistic taboos. A series of lectures by Ernst-August Gutt21 provide more
insight into the specific application of Relevance Theory to Bible translation.
2.1.3 Specific Non-Taboo Translation Issues
As the field of translation studies has developed, scholars and translators have developed a robust
literature on translation issues. A few topics that are not specific to taboo are still relevant to this topic.
Anything relating to the translation of metaphor is related to translation of linguistic taboo. Tsai22 in
particular identifies the range of what she calls ‘translation patterns’ and how they apply to emotional
metaphor. Andrews23 considers the issues of miscommunication when transferring codified taboos crossculturally.
2.2 General Taboo & Sociolinguistics
2.2.1 Introduction to Sociolinguistics
Most introductory textbooks in the field of sociolinguistics include a few pages on the concept of
taboo. They typically include an explanation of where the term taboo originated, and a description of the
range of topics that may be taboo in any given culture along with some examples from people groups
throughout the world. The section may reference or be combined with an entry on “Euphemism.” The
texts also may delineate the difference between cultural taboos against food or activities, and linguistic
taboos (i.e. referring to words which are considered improper and their meanings).

20

Sperber and Wilson, Relevance Theory.
Gutt, Relevance Theory.
22
Tsai, “Chinese Translation of Emotion Metaphors”
23
Andrews, “Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness”
21

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

8

Janet Holmes makes sure to also note the social and political implications of linguistic taboo on
an individual and cultural level, explaining how power dynamics play a role in determining which
concepts are considered taboo and the consequences for disregarding such prohibition.24
2.2.2 Popular Media on Swearing
Unsurprisingly, there is a large collection of books in popular media on linguistic taboo, and more
specifically, profanity.25 Some people are fascinated by concepts that are considered forbidden, which
produces a significant market for books on profanity, vulgarity, and improper speech, especially with
titles that requires censoring. The majority of these are focused on the cognitive sciences and do not offer
specific insight to the more general topic of linguistic taboo. However, a few books do provide valuable
foundation for the present discussion.
Benjamin K. Bergen26 provides a thorough introduction to swearing and includes reference to
linguistic taboo more broadly. As a linguist, Bergen is more interested in analyzing the linguistic aspects
of swearing, approaching the topic from a sociolinguistic and cognitive linguistic perspective. Bergen
discusses the role of culture and society in prohibited speech, and is careful to evaluate the topic crosslinguistically before presenting principles of swearing that he considers universal. Melissa Mohr takes a
historical approach to the topic in Holy Shit: A Brief History of Swearing.27 She analyzes prohibited
speech throughout the centuries, starting with Ancient Rome and through modern times. The nature of
this study also provides cross-linguistic data on linguistic taboo, and she considers the categories of each
taboo and the social rationale for it. Timothy Jay is one of the most popular modern scholars on the topic
of swearing. In one of his first works on the topic, Jay28 introduces what he calls the Neuro-Psycho-Socio
model (NPS) which seeks to explain human behavior for using linguistic taboo. One important feature of

24

Janet Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 4th ed. 340.
Following the leads of Bergen (2016) and Jay (2000), I’m using profanity, cursing, swearing, and expletive to
refer to the same category of language.
26
Bergen, What the F.
27
Mohr, Holy Shit.
28
Jay, Why We Curse.
25

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

9

this model is the assignment of emotional coding which is a helpful tool for understanding how best to
translate linguistic taboos without losing meaning and impact.
2.2.3 X-phemism Formation
The field of linguistic taboo studies has been shaped heavily by the work of Keith Allan and Kate
Burridge.29 Allan30 further develops his work on taboo language, where he introduces the concept of Xphemism for the expression of linguistic taboos. X-phemism refers to the forms expressions of linguistic
taboos can take: euphemism, orthophemism, and dysphemism; these terms are explained in further detail
in Section 3.2 of this paper.31 Most studies on linguistic taboos that have been published since 2006 build
off of Allan and Burridge’s work, and the model of X-phemisms is now a critical aspect of the field of
study.
2.2.4 Linguistics in Adjacent Disciplines
There are some adjacent linguistic disciplines that provide additional background for the
translation of linguistic taboos. The small field of study in sociolinguistics on politeness considers models
of politeness in linguistic exchanges, and the impact of these linguistic choices on the audience. Jonathan
Culpeper32 in particular presents a thorough introduction to the topic. One of the main features of
linguistic taboos is being considered “impolite” and Culpeper uses politeness theory to explain the
emotional value language carries in social situations.
The field of cognitive linguistics is also related to the topic of linguistic taboo, as evident in the
popular media books about swearing which are equally focused on cognitive linguistics as they are
sociolinguistics. Andrea Pizarro Pedraza33 covers the topic from a variety of different approaches, using
cognitive linguistics as the starting point for each.

29

Allan and Burridge, Forbidden Words.
Allan, The Oxford Handbook.
31
Allan, “X-phemism and creativity,” Lexis 7 (2012): 6.
32
Culpeper, Impoliteness.
33
Pedraza, Linguistic Taboo Revisited.
30

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

10

2.2.5 General Taboo Usage
There are some works studying the phenomenon of linguistic taboos more generally. The work of
Mary R. Haas34 is representative of the wealth of study done by anthropologists on linguistic taboos, often
in conjunction with broader studies on behavioral taboos. Haas is especially focused on phonetic
similarities between languages, and how these similarities lead to linguistic avoidance or language
change. Akbari, Shahnazari and Khorasgani35 discuss how linguistic taboos are tied to cultural values and
expectations. In the article, “Vittu and fuck – tales from a literary coexistence,” Minna Hjort36 explores
the differences between linguistic taboos in literature and spoken language.
2.2.6 Taboos in Specific Languages
Several works focus on linguistic taboos in a specific language. Chunming Gao 37 presents a
collection of English linguistic taboos specifically curated for Chinese professionals who interact with
English speaking business people. Gao’s premise is that the linguistic taboos also reveal cultural values
about the English speaking counterparts that help Chinese professionals do business with less risk of
unintentional offence. Michela Piccin38 (2018) deals with specific taboo concepts, DEATH and FAME, in
Akkadian literature from Mesopotamia in the 24th to 22nd centuries BC.
2.2.7 Anthologies on Taboos
A few comprehensive anthologies have been published on taboos, both behavioral and linguistic.
Geoffrey Hughes’ An Encyclopedia of Swearing: The Social History of Oaths, Profanity, Foul Language,
and Ethnic Slurs in the English-Speaking World39 is a 600-page encyclopedia on linguistic taboos in the
English language, and the terms used to discuss these taboos. Eugene A. Nida40 presents a cursory
anthology of practices that occur in a wide variety of cultural groups collected by Christian missionaries.

Haas, “Interlingual Word Taboos.”
Akbari, Shahnazari, and Khorasgani, “Five-Lettered Words.”
36
Hjort, “Vittu and Fuck.”
37
Gao, “A Sociolinguistic Study.”
38
Piccin, “Mortality and Fame.”
39
Hughes, Encyclopedia of Swearing.
40
Nida, Customs and Cultures.
34
35

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

11

While not exclusively focused on taboos, it does frequently reference both behavioral and linguistic
taboos that occur throughout the world.
2.3 Biblical Studies
2.3.1 Commentaries & Dictionaries
One of the main purposes of biblical commentaries and dictionaries is explaining aspects of
biblical culture that help readers understand the Bible. This naturally includes discussion of linguistic
taboos that occur in the Bible, including their cultural background and interpretation. While not beneficial
to read cover-to-cover to answer the questions raised by this thesis, commentaries and dictionaries may be
useful in the translation of linguistic taboos in specific passages. In order to translate a word taboo from
the source text, it is necessary to understand the semantic and pragmatic implications of the taboo in the
source culture. Many thorough exegetical guides, translation notes, or commentaries can provide the
background needed to understand the taboo in Hebrew or Greek. Broadly speaking, commentaries and
dictionaries written by and for translators are especially valuable because they specifically address the
challenge of transferring the linguistic taboo from one language and culture into another. The Exegetical
Helps and Translator’s Notes series by SIL International offer this information for those books of the
Bible for which they are available. Likewise, the United Bible Societies’ Handbooks on each book of the
Bible are useful guides.
2.3.2 Biblical Studies for Lay People
There is a small genre of books written by biblical scholars and theologians for lay people. These
are meant to be accessible for anyone with a minimal amount of biblical literacy, and are typically
focused on specific sections of the Bible or topics in biblical studies or theology. These books have the
benefit of doing in depth analysis on a specific topic or genre, while also appealing to popular interest (in
some cases by exploring controversial topics). In many cases, these topics intersect with cultural taboos,
and these works provide relevant background for linguistic taboos, in some cases even insight into their
translations. A few examples of these books are listed below.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

12

Anderson41 is a classic study on the Psalms, written to be accessible for people regardless of their
level of biblical literacy. Hebrew poetry frequently deals with subject matter that was considered taboo
(DEATH, BIRTH, SEX, etc.); therefore, many analyses of the psalms will deal with linguistic taboos when
they occur. While the analysis of these taboos is not very detailed, Anderson presents colloquial
translation aids for some passages throughout the text. Johnston42 is focused on the metaphysical and
cultural understandings of Israelite afterlife as depicted in the Bible. This necessarily includes discussion
of the linguistic taboos surrounding death and the afterlife. Abuelita Faith: What Women on the Margins
Teach Us about Wisdom, Persistence, and Strength by Kat Armas43 is a theology drawn from and shared
by people of marginalized identities. As people who exist outside traditional positions of societal power
sometimes rely on taboo means to advocate for themselves, this book on biblical womanhood deals with a
variety of linguistic taboos that occur in their source passages.
2.3.3 Studies on Specific Taboos / Specific Passages
There are a few papers written on the topic of specific linguistic taboos in the Bible or linguistic
taboos in specific passages of the Bible. Sidney K. Berman44 and Song-Mi Suzie Park45 both explore
linguistic taboos in specific Old Testament passages. They provide a thorough exegesis of the passages
and background for the taboos found in each, but do not offer advice for translators approaching these
passages in other languages. David J. Clark46 lists the linguistic taboos that occur in the prophetic books,
organized by category. Clark gives a thorough summary of the challenges faced in the translation of these
verses, and offers a general recommendation for translators to be cautious.

41

Anderson, Out of the Depths.
Johnston, Shades of Sheol.
43
Armas, Abuelita Faith.
44
Berman, “Analyzing the Frames of a Bible,” doctoral dissertation.
45
Park, “Census and Censure.”
46
Clark, “Sex Related Imagery”
42

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

13

2.4 Translation of Taboo Language
2.4.1 Translation of Taboo Language in the Bible
There is a limited amount of scholarship on the main topic of this thesis. In 1971, Jan de Waard
authored one of the first articles on the topic in the journal The Bible Translator. Waard47 identifies
twelve methods for translating euphemisms, and evaluates some of the considerations that should be
involved in making an appropriate translation choice. While brief, the article is a thorough discussion of a
variety of euphemisms in the Bible regarding bodily functions, sexual organs, sexual intercourse, and
death. The article is a sound starting point for considering the issue and discussion of exegesis; however,
Waard’s purpose is only to introduce the topic and invite further scholarship. He is unable to follow the
discussion to any substantial conclusions in the brief investigation. In four subsequent articles, Waard and
Loewen48 deal more generally with translation of metaphorical language, rather than specifically
linguistic taboo.
Ellingworth and Mojola49 discuss a short list of verses or passages that include linguistic taboo
and the consequences of poor translation choices. At only 4 pages long, this is also an excellent
introductory discussion with the intention of encouraging future discussion on the topic. Ellington50
briefly references a few linguistic taboos, including the divine name YHWH, before discussing the nature
of language change and its impact on linguistic taboo in translation. In this brief article, Ellington offers
limited analysis and no proposed solutions beyond encouraging translators to be careful to use
translations that are accurate but not unnecessarily distracting.
In the 30 years that followed Ellington’s brief article, there has been very little published on this
topic for Bible translators. In 2013 a short encyclopedia entry on “Euphemisms and Bible Translations”
was included in the Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics.51 The entry primarily includes

Waard, “Do you Use Clean Language?”
Waard, “Biblical Metaphors”; Loewen, “Non-Literal Meanings I”; Loewen, “Non-Literal Meanings II”; and
Loewen, “Non-Literal Meanings III”
49
Ellingworth and Mojola, “Translating Euphemisms in the Bible.”
50
Ellington, “Taboo Words in the Bible.”
51
Warren-Rothlin, “Euphemisms and Bible Translations.”
47
48

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

14

examples of linguistic taboos and their translations in the Old Testament, with a few anecdotal stories
about poor translations.
2.4.2 Translation of Linguistic Taboo in Ancient Translations of the Bible
One piece of literature worth noting is the doctoral thesis by Douglas Todd Magnum.52 While
Magnum is focused on ancient translations, namely the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and the Targums, rather
than current translation efforts, the background and methodology presented in the paper are still relevant.
Magnum thoroughly reviews previous studies on translation theories, translating figurative language, and
Bible translation. Ultimately, the study finds that these ancient texts translated linguistic taboos in such a
way as to avoid eliciting “negative reactions from their audiences.” 53 Magnum concludes by
recommending further study be done on the topic in modern Bible translations, suggesting, “This topic
has particular potential because so many Bible translations today are accompanied by metatexts
explaining their translation philosophy. Further, modern translation projects often have records available
detailing aspects of their translation work, or the translators themselves may be available to interview or
observe their thought processes. A final advantage of conducting such a study of euphemisms in modern
Bible translation is the opportunity for surveying sample audiences from the target culture to determine
their reactions to various renderings of taboo terms.” 54
2.4.3 Translation of Linguistic Taboo in Specific Translations of the Bible
Beyond Magnum’s thesis on the topic of ancient Bible translations, I have found only one other
article which specifically addresses the question of translating linguistic taboos in the Bible. Bello55
analyzes a selection of passages from seven different Old and New Testament books in the 1960 Yoruba
Bible translation published by the Bible Society of Nigeria. After some introductory information about
Bible translation and Yoruba culture, Bello takes 11 pages to compare source text and translation of
various categories of linguistic taboo. The findings of this article clearly illustrate the need for more

Magnum, “To Conceal or Reveal?” Doctoral thesis.
Mangum, “To Conceal or Reveal?” Doctoral thesis, 300.
54
Mangum, “To Conceal or Reveal?” Doctoral thesis, 301.
55
Bello, “A Study of Taboo and Euphemistic Expressions.”
52
53

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

15

detailed study to be done, as Bello highlights translation choices that fail to communicate the source
material effectively, sometimes even causing confusion and miscommunications.
2.4.4 Translation of Linguistic Taboo in the Quran
While the collection of literature on translating linguistic taboo in the Bible is nominal, there is a
more substantial corpus considering the topic for the Quran. As noted above, there are significant
differences between Bible translation and Quran translation, including the reverence assigned to the text
itself and resulting concerns about legitimacy of translations from the source language. However, even
with these differences, the similarities of translating such provocative language in a sacred text are worth
considering.
The majority of this literature is made up of articles published in international social sciences and
linguistic journals in recent decades. In response to increasing dialogue on linguistic taboos in the
intercultural studies fields, Muslim and Arab scholars started considering the processes for translating
these words into other languages. The first section of Dastjerdi and Jamshidian56 outlines Quranic
scholarship on translation up to that point. While Dastjerdi and Jamshidian are focused on the translation
of puns, rather than linguistic taboos specifically, the prevalence of lewd puns in the Quran makes their
background study and analysis a valuable contribution. Some additional papers focus on translation
challenges that are only tangential to linguistic taboo, namely Dastjerdi and Zamani57 and Ananzeh58.
Some longer articles neatly address the topic. Al-Hamad and Salman59 give an in-depth
discussion of the translation principles at play in translating linguistic taboos, categorize the linguistic
taboos that frequently occur, and provide advice for translating with emotional impact in mind. Al-Sharafi
and Khader60 expertly considers the nuance of the debate between formal and dynamic translations of
linguistic taboos around SEX in the Quran. While they do not provide advice for translators, Al-Sharafi

Dastjerdi and Jamshidian, “Sacramental Wordplay.”
Dastjerdi and Zamani, “Translation of Homonymous Terms.”
58
Ananzeh, “Conversation Implicatures.”
59
Al-Hamad and Salman, “The Translatability of Euphemism.”
60
Al-Sharafi and Khader, “Assessing the Quality.”
56
57

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

16

and Khader do assess the strengths and weaknesses of different translation choices on both sides of the
spectrum. Adbelaal61 highlights the differences between translation of the Quran and Bible by
emphasizing the fundamental untranslatability of the Quran. Because of this, the solutions Adbelaal
proposes are more appropriate to formal translation principles, but the challenges he identifies are
valuable considerations.
2.4.5 Translation of Taboo Language in Other Genres
While the translation of linguistic taboos in religious texts is a minimally researched topic, the
translation in other genres is more popular. These are focused on the translation of linguistic taboos and
euphemism in either a general sense, or in a particular source text, from one specific language to another.
Many use the points identified in the sources above to analyze their chosen subject. Rababah62 uses Allan
and Burridge’s work in X-phemisms as the foundation for consideration of linguistic taboos in crosslinguistic medical fields. Alavi, Karimnia, and Zadeh63 approach the issue using skopos theory, which
advocates giving high priority to the purpose for a particular translation in determining formal features.
Popular taboos being analyzed are those around DEATH and SEX, and popular languages are Arabic,
French, Chinese, and English.
Some studies focus on specific literature; for example Martin64 analyzes linguistic taboo in
Shakespearean literature, and Khodashenas65 analyzes the linguistic taboos used by English language
learners in Iran. A significant number of articles have been written on the translation of linguistic taboos
in movies and television. Some consider a broad category of works, for example Khoshaligheh and Ameri
in “Translation of Taboos in Dubbed American Crime Movies into Persian.”66 Others are focused on a

Abdelaal, “Translation Denotative Meaning.”
Rababah, “Translatability and Use of X-Phemism.”
63
Alavi, Karimnia, and Zadeh, “Taboos from English into Persian.”
64
Martin, “Un(Translatability) of Shakespeare’s Bawdy Puns.”
65
Khodashenas, “Euphemistic Strategies by Iranian EFL Learners.”
66
Khoshaligheh and Ameri, “Dubbed American Crime Movies.”
61
62

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

17

particular movie like Filmer’s thesis “Translating Racial Slurs: A Comparative Analysis of Gran Torino
Assessing Transfer of Offensive Language between English and Italian.”67

67

Filmer, “Comparative Analysis of Gran Torino,” Masters thesis.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

18

3.0 Methodology
The Christian scriptures refer to many concepts which are considered taboo by certain people
groups, making the work of translation that much harder. It can be difficult to translate when the concept
is taboo in both the source language (SL) and the receptor language (RL). Many such linguistic taboos are
expressed through metaphor and idiom, which is already a complicated translation issue. Regardless of
how the taboo is expressed, it is important to preserve the meaning that the text would have held for the
original audience. Translation gets more complicated when a concept is taboo in the SL and not in the RL,
as the SL text may employ a euphemism that is unnecessary and confusing to the receptor culture.
Likewise, not all concepts which are taboo in other languages will have been taboo in the biblical
cultures. The translator needs to consider how to convey the message in ways that are both accurate and
appropriate for the receptor audience.
As this paper is concerned with the translation of linguistic taboos in the Bible crosslinguistically, a small sample of five passages containing linguistic taboos has been selected and analyzed.
A discussion of each and some general translation options and considerations follows the analysis. The
study of these five passages is intended to be representative of the process of translating linguistic taboos
in the Bible. In this hypothetical discussion, it is not possible to identify one-size-fits-all solutions; the
intention is to provide a guiding framework that can be applied in a diverse range of translation situations.
As a preface, taboo language is treated differently in speech than in writing. This distinction will
be important for translators to consider, especially when working on a translation that will be printed. It is
possible that many of the same principles will carry over into an oral translation and scripture resources as
well, due to the authority of the Bible as a holy text. However, when considering viable translation
options, it will be important to consider whether a term is appropriate for written text, informal
conversation, or both. The final chapter will briefly discuss the opportunity to develop this topic more
specifically for written and oral translations, as well as considering multilingual contexts.
In this Methodology, I will first identify the overall translation approach (Meaning-Based
Translation) which I will employ in this project, then will present a specific analytical process (X-

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

19

Phemism) which applies to the problems being address. Following that, I will introduce the five scripture
texts which will be examined, and then will conclude with the two-step methodology for proceeding
towards translation decisions. The remainder of this chapter will be organized as such:
3.1 Translation Approach
3.2 X-Phemism Analysis
3.3 Text Selection
3.4 Source Text Analysis
3.5 Receptor Culture Analysis
3.1 Translation Approach
As referenced in the previous chapter, the field of Bible translation studies has produced a wide
range of translation theories and methodologies. This paper is functioning within the framework of
meaning-based translation, as posited by Mildred L. Larson in Meaning Based Translation and developed
from the works of Eugene A. Nida. According to Larson, “translation consists of transferring the meaning
of the source language into the receptor language. This is done by going from the form of the first
language to the form of a second language by way of semantic structure. It is meaning which is being
transferred and must be held constant.”68 Discussion of translation principles in this paper will prioritize
an accurate translation of meaning, with consideration for clarity, naturalness, and appropriateness.
Translations into minority languages around the world typically use a Bible translation in a
language of wider communication as the source text, with reference to the original language texts.
Linguistic taboos will require extensive reference to the original languages in order to understand the
taboo and its intended meaning. For the sake of simplicity, the terms source text, language, or culture in
this paper will refer to the biblical languages and original audience. Receptor text, language, or culture
will refer to the language and people receiving the Bible translation.
3.2 X-Phemism Analysis
A key theory in this analysis is the principle of x-phemisms, as proposed by Keith Allan and Kate
Burridge. According to Allan and Burridge, word taboos can be expressed in language one of three ways:

68

Larson, Meaning-Based Translation, 3.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

20

euphemism, orthophemism, and dysphemism. Euphemisms are ways of expressing a taboo indirectly in
order to avoid discomfort or shame. An orthophemism is the more direct way of expressing, often using
technical language. Dysphemisms are expressions of taboos which are intentionally offensive. 69 For
example, when discussing recent employment changes at a company, it would be euphemistic to say the
firm downsized some employees, orthophemistic to say the firm terminated the employment of some
employees, and dysphemistic to say that the firm sacked some employees. A more vulgar example would
be the orthophemism defecation expressed euphemistically as number two and dysphemistically as shit.
This categorization is determined by social context; a linguistic taboo may be offensive for one audience
and appropriate for another.
Miguel Casas Gómez70 also presents the categories of euphemistic dysphemisms, where
dysphemisms are used affectionately, and dysphemistic euphemisms, where a euphemism is being used
derogatively. These occurrences emphasize the importance of audience and speaker intention in
understanding expressions of linguistic taboos. The use of dysphemisms can cause serious offense in
certain social contexts, but when used within an exclusive group where the audience has shared traits and
rapport has been established, the same linguistic taboos can be understood as friendly. Similarly, the
intention of the speaker can be to use a euphemism, which would normally render an express more polite,
to cause offense. Factors such as tone, conversational context, and shared identities between the speaker
and audience can help identify the intention of the expression.
3.3 Text Selection
The texts for this paper were carefully selected to address a range of genres, topics, and
expressions in the Bible. The verses are from both Greek and Hebrew texts; from the gospels, prophetic
books, historical books, Pentateuch, and poetic books; and covering the taboos of DEATH,
MENSTRUATION, EXCRETION,

and GENITALIA. For each text, there will be an introductory exegetical study

and analysis of the background for the SL linguistic taboo. The results of this analysis are highlighted

69
70

Allan, “X-phemism and creativity,” 6.
Gomez, “The Expressive Creativity of Euphemism and Dysphemism,” 48-49.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

21

below to illustrate the range of expressions selected. This background will serve as the foundation for a
discussion of the considerations needed when translating the texts, and as well as some suggested
translation approaches. The following paragraphs identify the selected texts and briefly introduce them; in
Section 3.4 each of these is considered in detail.
3.3.1 John 11:11
After saying this, he [Jesus] told them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I am going there to
awaken him.”
The first example is from the New Testament and is a situation where the Greek text utilizes a
euphemism in order to express a taboo (DEATH) in a way that is more palatable for the audience. A
translation could choose to express this with a euphemism or orthophemism, depending on whether the
same concept is taboo in the RL and what emotional response is intended by the euphemism.
3.3.2 Isaiah 64:6
We have all become like one who is unclean, / and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy cloth. / We all
fade like a leaf, / and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
The next example uses an orthophemism in the Hebrew. The word translated as filthy describes
the cloth that women used during their menstruation. The taboos surrounding the concept of
MENSTRUATION

are evidenced in the purity laws dictated in Leviticus, and will be discussed in more

detail in the next chapter. Depending on context, orthophemisms can sometimes be used with the
intention to soften a taboo, as when using clinical language in a doctor’s office. A speaker can also use an
orthophemism to cause offense when the concept would otherwise require a euphemism for the audience.
The context of this passage in Isaiah does not suggest a situation which would warrant clinical language,
and there is evidence that this orthophemism is meant to cause offense. A translation could potentially use
euphemism, orthophemism, or dysphemism to express this concept.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

22

3.3.3 1 Kings 14:10
therefore I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam every male, both
bond and free in Israel, and will consume the house of Jeroboam, just as one burns up dung until it is all
gone.
The third example from the historical books utilizes a dysphemism. The phrase usually translated
“every male” is actually a participle ‫ מַ ְׁש ִּ֣תין בְׁ ִ֔קיר‬which means “anyone urinating on the wall.” This serves
as an idiom, referring to the male anatomy and ability to urinate while standing. The author could have
chosen to simply say “male” but instead used an idiom that explicitly refers to the manner to which boys
or men might urinate in public. The intent is to cause discomfort, further demonstrated by the hostile tone
through the rest of the passage. The translation should attempt to convey the negative encoding in the
source text. This may be achieved by a comparable dysphemism or other emotionally charged language.
3.3.4 Genesis 17:11
You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and
you.
The fourth example comes from God’s first instructions for circumcision in the Pentateuch. While
most language referring to private body parts, especially sexual organs, is taboo in Israelite culture, the
topic of circumcision is not treated with any linguistic taboos. The source text does not indicate any
prohibitions around the words used to describe the practice of circumcision; however, other cultures may
have linguistic taboos around the practice, or around discussion of genitalia. This example provides the
opportunity to explore how to translate an expression that is apparently not taboo in the SL but may be in
the RL.
3.3.5 Song of Songs 7:2
Your navel is a rounded bowl; / may it never lack mixed wine. / Your belly is a heap of wheat, / encircled
with lilies.
A study on linguistic taboos in the Bible would not be complete without an exploration of Song
of Songs. This verse was chosen to demonstrate situations in which preserving a euphemism may be

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

23

appropriate to convey heightened emotional response, as opposed to the typical softening.71 The word
“navel” can be read literally, referring to the woman’s midsection. The navel was considered an
especially attractive part of a woman in Ancient Near East cultures, so at a minimum, it refers to body
parts that are considered arousing. However, many scholars think that the navel is a double entendre for
the vulva, referring to its rounded shape and considering that a woman’s navel is not typically wet. The
translator needs to consider an appropriate euphemism to express sensual body parts (whether midsection
or genitalia), while attempting not to lose the intentional evocative nature of the word.
3.4 Source Text Analysis
The first step in any translation process is to understand the source message. When translating
linguistic taboos, the translator must evaluate the concept in the context of the SL and determine if it was
taboo and how the linguistic taboo was expressed. Because the source text is in Greek, Hebrew, and
Aramaic and does not have living cultures to study, this understanding is formed through exegetical
study. Fortunately, scholars have been studying and writing on topics surrounding biblical cultures and
languages for centuries. A variety of resources are used in this step, starting with the Greek and Hebrew
texts with reference to the appropriate lexicons. Biblical dictionaries, encyclopedias, commentaries, and
translation guides are also referenced to supplement understanding of the semantic and pragmatic
meaning and cultural background. Additional resources are cited as referenced. These all provide the
necessary background for the linguistic taboo and its meaning for the original audience.
3.5 Receptor Culture Analysis
The next step is determining if the linguistic taboo is taboo in the RL, and if so, how to express it.
As a theoretical discussion, this paper will focus on providing questions and considerations for translators
to utilize in this process. Community input will be essential to understand the boundaries around the
linguistic taboos. This input can provide understanding of the appropriateness of lexical choices, any

71

Coleson and Derck, Song of Songs, 107.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

24

considerations for specific audiences or speakers, the emotional valency of the terms, and the attitudes of
the community towards certain taboos.
This paper will deal primarily with the challenges of choosing the best translation, and will
emphasize the importance of community checking; however, this process may be complicated by the
nature of researching and testing linguistic taboos in the wider population. The cultural taboos may
influence community members’ ability and comfort to provide feedback on expressions of topics which
are heavily prohibited, especially if the translators are not members of the community. Social issues of
politeness and honor-shame will likely make community checkers hesitant to openly discuss taboos.
Translators will need to think creatively in order to solicit the feedback needed throughout the translation
process.
To further illustrate the methodology, each of the five discussions will conclude with a potential
translation of the verse in English. This translation is will focus only on the linguistic taboo being
analyzed within the NRSV translation provided, rather than proposing a new translation of the entire
verse. The translation is suggested for an adult North American audience, with extra consideration for an
audience of lower biblical literacy in order to mimic a new translation context.
An appendix is included at the end of this paper with an outline of questions which may assist the
translator in evaluating all topics that are relevant for both the source text and receptor culture analyses.
The discussion of each of the five verses in Chapter 4 will demonstrate the application of many of these
Guiding Questions to the translation process.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

25

4.0 Discussion
4.1 John 11:11
After saying this, he told them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I am going there to awaken
him.”
4.1.1 Exegesis
The gospel of John is one of the four books in the New Testament which tell the story of Jesus
Christ. Unlike the three Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) which have many similarities
between them, the contents of the gospel of John are mostly unique, with only a small percentage of its
passages having parallel counterparts in the Synoptic gospels.72
Historical and Literary Context
Traditionally, John was thought to have been written by the apostle John “on the basis of his own
memories, with no other assistance than the prompting of his friends and colleagues to set down in
writing his recollections of Jesus.”73 This view was supported by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, in the second
century AD. Irenaeus was said to be one step removed from the apostle John, having studied with
Polycarp, who was acquainted with John before his death.74 The gospel does not explicitly state the author
of the book, identifying the author only as “the beloved disciple,” but there is little reason to reject the
traditional views regarding authorship.
Some scholars suggest that John’s divergence from the synoptic gospels is evidence that it was
written at the same time without using them as a resource.75 However, most scholars agree that John
likely wrote his gospel at a later date, around 90-95 AD, and was aware of the other gospels even if he did
not borrow from them as extensively as they did from one another.76

72

Homes and Lyons, John 1-12, 34.
Beasley-Murray, John, xxxv.
74
Beasley-Murray, John, lxvi.
75
Homes and Lyons, John 1-12, 41.
76
Homes and Lyons, John 1-12, 41.
73

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

26

If the later date of authorship is true, scholars have considered whether John’s purpose in writing
the gospel might have been to “supplement the other three, or to interpret them, or even to correct
them.”77 It is difficult to determine the purpose as it relates to the other gospels with the evidence
available; however, there are some audience-specific purposes that can be identified. The two categories
of readers the author seemed to have in mind are Jewish-Christian readers and Greco-Roman GentileChristian converts.78 The Christology in the prologue emphasizes these audiences as it answers the
important questions for both groups: namely the Jewish desire for “the Wisdom and Torah of God” and
the Gentile design for “the Logos that makes sense of the chaotic world.”79 This context will be important
to understand the impact the text being studied had on its original audience.
In terms of genre, the four gospels are generally considered ancient biographies. They differ from
narratives in that they are intended to be historical, and from histories as they especially focus on the
subject’s character. Ancient biographies often organized their text topically as opposed to
chronologically, typically begin at adulthood, and might paraphrase events and dialogue to convey the
intended characterization.80 The gospel of John often takes the form of “a narrative followed by a
discourse on its meaning;” however, in chapter 11, the form is altered slightly to utilize dialogue
throughout the narrative.81 The dialogue serves to emphasize the important points that are conveyed in the
narrative.
Linguistic Taboo Analysis
The gospel of John frequently makes use of a literary feature sometimes referred to as a
“Johannine misunderstanding,” where something is misunderstood by the other characters in the scene
and the clarification made by the speaker allows for deeper understanding on behalf of the audience in the
narrative and of the gospel itself. 82 In this example, the disciples misunderstand when Jesus uses a

77

Beasley-Murray, John, lxxxviii.
Homes and Lyons, John 1-12, 43.
79
Homes and Lyons, John 1-12, 44.
80
Homes and Lyons, John 1-12, 33.
81
Beasley-Murray, John, 184.
82
Beasley-Murray, John, 188–189.
78

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

27

euphemism (κεκοίμηται, to fall asleep) to say that Lazarus has died. The verse (John 11:11) reads as
follows in the Greek, with my glossing and translation below.
ταῦτα

εἶπεν,

καὶ

μετὰ

τοῦτο

λέγει

αὐτοῖς,

οὗτος

εἶπον

καί

μετά

οὗτος

λέγω

αὐτός

ουτος

λεγω

και

μετα

dem pronoun
acc, pl, ntr
these

verb, aorist, act,
indicative, 3sg
say

conj

prep

and

following

Λάζαρος
Λάζαρος
Λαζαρος

ὁ
ὁ
ο

φίλος
φίλος
φιλος

ἡμῶν
ἐγώ
εγω

κεκοίμηται·
κοιμάω
κειμαι

noun,
nom sg, masc

article,
nom sg,
masc

adj,
nom sg,
masc

personal
pronoun,
gen, 1pl

Lazarus

the

friend

our

ουτος

λεγω

αυτος

dem pronoun,
acc, sg, ntr
this

verb, present, act,
indicative, 3sg
say

personal pronoun,
dat, 3mp
they

ἀλλὰ
ἀλλά
αλλος

πορεύομαι
πορεύομαι
πορευομαι

ἵνα
ἵνα
ινα

ἐξυπνίσω
ἐξυπνίζω
υπνος

αὐτόν.
αὐτός
αυτος

verb,
perfect, pass,
indicative, 3sg

conj

verb,
present,
mid/pass,
indicative, 1sg

conj

verb,
aorist, act,
subjunctive,
1sg

personal
pronoun,
acc, 3ms

lie; fall asleep

but

go

in order
that

wake

he

And after he said this, he said this to them, “Lazarus our friend has fallen asleep, but I am going to wake him.”

Many cultures around the world and throughout history have taboos about death, largely related
to their beliefs about an afterlife. Before the Babylonian exile, the ancient Israelites did not have any
systematic eschatology, instead believing that “life in its proper sense ends at death, even if there is some
shadowy vestige which continues to exist in Sheol.”83 This view is similar to those of other
Mesopotamian peoples.84 The association with punishment for sin in Eden demonstrates that the Israelites
considered death to be negative, rather than neutral. It has been suggested that to the Israelites, death
represented removal from Yahweh’s covenant blessings and was something to be feared and avoided.85
As the Jewish people interacted more with people beyond Mesopotamia and Egypt, their beliefs
developed to consider teachings on an afterlife and resurrection. 86 This leads to the schisms of Second
Temple Judaism where different sects, especially the Sadducees and Pharisees, held opposing beliefs on
the expectation of a resurrection.87 This is the history the Jewish-Christian readers would have in mind

Lester Grabbe as qtd. in “Death,” Lexham Bible Dictionary.
Lester Grabbe as qtd. in “Death,” Lexham Bible Dictionary.
85
Silva and Tenney, Zondervan Encyclopedia, D-G, 74.
86
Shields, “Death,” Lexham Bible Dictionary.
87
Shields, “Death,” Lexham Bible Dictionary.
83
84

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

28

when reading this text. On the other hand, Gentile-Christian readers would likely be bringing their own
Greco-Roman contexts which had very well-defined beliefs about the afterlife.
When Jesus uses a euphemism to refer to death, he is referencing the historical euphemism in
Hebrew (‫ ַוי ְִּׁשכַ ַּ֥ב עִּ ם־אֲבֹ ָ֑תיו‬, ‘he slept with his ancestors’), which was translated with the same Greek verb in
the LXX as Jesus uses here. However, as beliefs about the afterlife developed, it follows that linguistic
taboos around the concept of DEATH would have been less important for polite speech. The euphemism
Jesus uses should have been recognizable to the disciples, which reflects poorly on them for their
misunderstanding. 88 Some scholars suggest that the phrase is evidence of Christ’s divinity and the
misunderstanding of the disciples is due to their failure to understand the heavenly language.89 This is
unlikely given the idiom’s frequent use through the Bible: 43 times in the Old Testament and 15 times in
the New Testament. The euphemism is extended as a metaphor throughout the rest of the New Testament
(and one use at the end of Matthew) to discuss the resurrection of κεκοιμημένων, those who had fallen
asleep, from their tombs. The original audience of the gospel of John would likely have understood the
euphemistic meaning in this context, but also would not likely have been offended by the use of an
orthophemism, as seen in verse 14 when Jesus uses θνησκω to say that Lazarus has died.
In Matthew 9:24 when Jesus raises Jairus’ daughter, he tells the crowd that the girl is asleep.
Here, he says καθεύδω, which is never used euphemistically for death in the New Testament. This is the
only instance where it refers to someone dead, although clearly Jesus intends it to be understood as sleep.
4.1.2 Translation Guidance
With a thorough understanding of the context of the passage, the linguistic taboo and its use in the
SL, and the exegetical analysis of its use in the specific verse, the translator is faced with the question of
how to translate the taboo. As noted above, the context of the rest of the passage is very important when it
comes to translating this verse. In the following verses, the disciples misunderstand Jesus, taking the

88
89

Homes and Lyons, John 1-12, 274.
Lange and Schaff, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: John, 344.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

29

euphemism literally to mean that Lazarus is sleeping. In order for the episode to make sense, it is
necessary to translate the denotative meaning of the expression: “Lazarus has fallen asleep.”
The Word is Not Taboo in the Receptor Language
If the RL does not require linguistic taboos in referring to DEATH, then the translation of the
euphemism is fairly straightforward. Because the denotative meaning of κεκοίμηται needs to be
translated, the translator may want to include a footnote or expand the translation to indicate the
euphemistic meaning from the Greek: “has fallen asleep (by which Jesus meant he had died).” While the
later verses in the passage do explain to the reader that Lazarus has died, the audience (notwithstanding
the confusion of the disciples) would likely have used κεκοίμηται both with its denotative meaning of
falling asleep and euphemistic meaning of death in different contexts. Also, both senses are needed in
order to recognize that the disciples have misunderstood Jesus.
Some translation references suggest including a footnote that specifically defines “when someone
who believes in Jesus dies, it is like sleep, because he/they have eternal life.” 90 While it is possible that
Jesus is using the euphemism in anticipation of the resurrection of all believers, it is more likely that Jesus
is using the culturally Hebrew euphemism. This note might be appropriate for later uses of the
euphemism in Paul’s epistles.
The Word is Taboo in the Receptor Language
If the RL does have linguistic taboos around the topic of death, the translator will need to
consider how best to retain both meanings without causing offense. If the RL also uses sleep as a
euphemism for death, then this euphemism can be translated directly with the appropriate RL phrase.91
The translator should be sure to do comprehensive community checking to determine that the RL
euphemism provides the meaning necessary to understand the rest of the episode or if additional
information is needed for full comprehension and clarity.

90
91

The Translator’s Reference Translation of John, Jn 11:11.
Kelly, Anderson, and Anderson, Translator’s Notes on John, Jn 11:11.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

30

If the euphemism is not transferrable, κεκοίμηται still needs to be translated as ‘sleep,’ but the
translator should also attempt to indicate the secondary meaning. The approach described in the section
above is an option, but the additional explanation in either text or footnote should not cause undue offense
if clearly naming Lazarus’ death, nor confusion if using a RL euphemism in addition to the SL idiom. The
translator should consider how the RL speakers discuss the death of loved ones in the community,
especially noting variation due to status, cause of death, audience, and religion.
Language is flexible and new idioms and metaphors are created all the time. It may be especially
appropriate to rely on this flexibility in a verse like this where the full explanation is given in the text.
However, the translation should still be natural and clear. The words are attributed to Christ in this verse,
so the translation of them will contribute to whether people believe God is fully present with them,
speaking their own language.
In reference to the translation of θνησκω (‘die’) in verse 14, Section 4.4 discusses the translation
of linguistic taboos where the SL does not require a taboo while the RL does.
Additional Considerations
There are additional questions to explore when deciding how best to translate a linguistic taboo.
As with any other translation process, evaluating translations which have already been completed in the
RL or a language of wider communication (LWC) can provide valuable information and context. For
example, this verse has been translated with little variation in some of the most common English Bibles,
although there are discrepancies in which verses are noted to cross-reference other passages where sleep
is used to refer to death. In comparison to the translation of the NRSV given at the beginning of this
section, some other common English Bible translations express the verse in the following ways:
ESV: “After saying these things, he said to them, ‘Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go
to awaken him.’”
NASB: “This He said, and after that He said to them, ‘Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I
go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep.’”

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

31

NIV: “After he had said this, he went on to tell them, ‘Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I
am going there to wake him up.’”
KJV: “These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I
go, that I may awake him out of sleep.”
When considering the existing translations in a language, the translator should also consider how the
community has responded to the translation. In this instance, it will be important to make sure the
audience has full comprehension of the episode based on the translation and paratextual information
available: the state of Lazarus throughout the narrative, the timeline of activities, the disciples’
misunderstanding, and Jesus’ explanation. If any understanding is lacking, there may need to be different
translation choices made.
The translator should also consider how the taboo is expressed in written publications and other
forms of media as opposed to oral or signed expressions. When and how euphemistic expressions are
expected may depend in part on form of the communication. The authority of the speaker is also a factor.
If a person of lower status in the community can use a linguistic taboo but the spiritual leader or
government cannot, it may not be appropriate to print in the Bible.
Potential Translation of John 11:11
English does not have the same euphemism for death, but the translation cannot use an English
euphemism such as “pass away” or “be laid to rest.” As discussed above, the translation of this verse
needs to be ‘fall asleep’ in order to make sense in the context of the Johannine misunderstanding. In
order for sleep to refer to death in English, it would have to add “and never wake up” which adds more
than is needed to the translation or “be put to sleep” which implies euthanasian. The best way to
express the euphemism in this verse is through a footnote. Also, while death is taboo in English, it is
not so much that a direct reference would be uncomfortable to the audience, especially within a
footnote.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

32

After saying this, he told them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep1, but I am going there to awaken
him.”
1

To “fall asleep” was a euphemism which meant to “die”

4.2 Isaiah 64:6
We have all become like one who is unclean, / and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy cloth. / We all
fade like a leaf, / and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
4.2.1 Exegesis
This passage includes an example of linguistic taboo in one of the prophetic books of the Bible.
Isaiah is considered one of the major prophets in the English Bible, along with Jeremiah, Lamentations,
Ezekiel, and Daniel. In the Hebrew Bible Isaiah belongs to the latter prophets (Nevi'im Akharonim),
following the books of the former prophets of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. The text of Isaiah is
frequently quoted in the New Testament and rabbinic literature as well as read during Jewish festivals and
cited in early church writings.92
Historical and Literary Context
There is some disagreement over the authorship and dating of the book of Isaiah. Traditionally
the book was thought to have been authored in its entirety by the prophet Isaiah who lived in Jerusalem
around the eight century BC.93 However, textual criticism has led scholars to identify three distinct
sections of the book, with a potential for different authors and dating for each. The prophecies in each
section relate to three separate time periods of Israel’s history: chapter 1-39 describe 739-700 BC,
chapters 40-55 describe 545-535 BC, and chapters 56-66 describe 520-500 BC.94 The disagreement over
authorship stems from skepticism that the author of chapters 1-39, who is assumed to be living and
addressing an audience around 700 BC, could have written chapters 40-66 which address events that

92

Ross, Isaiah 1-39, 27-28.
Ross, Isaiah 1-39, 28-29.
94
Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 3.
93

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

33

occurred between 545-500 BC.95 Brueggemann’s suggestion is that the second and third sections are
“organically derived from” the first, forming deliberately cohesive structure and themes.96 These
structures and themes provide important context for understanding and translating linguistic taboos, as
well as the historical and literary context which explains that chapters 56-66 are most likely written to
Judeans who are returning from Babylonian exile.97 This context helps the translator to understand the
intended meaning to the original audience and the tone of the passage. Given the larger biblical narrative,
it makes sense for this passage to be emotional and severe as it addresses the recurring patterns of sin that
lead to the Babylonian exile and the events that follow.
In terms of passage structure and outline, this verse falls in a larger section between chapters 63
and 64. There is some variation in where the section begins; some scholars propose at the start of chapter
6398 or at 63:799, and others identify a smaller subsection that begins at 63:15.100 Regardless of where the
section starts, there is general agreement that it ends at 64:12. This section is a part of a prayer of
confession in a larger section about hope for compassion. The themes mentioned above also inform
analysis of the linguistic taboo. The theological themes emphasized in this section of Isaiah are that God
is sovereign over the people of Israel and over all the other nations.101 Literary background and genre are
also key factors in understanding the context of a passage of scripture. Watts identifies the genre of Isaiah
64:3-8 as a sermon-prayer (also seen in Deuteronomy and Chronicles), along with 63:7-14.102 The
sermon-prayer in this passage is frequently interrupted by “accusations against God” and “sectarian
complaints.” (63:15-64:2 and 64:9-11)103 The literary context and themes also provide helpful background
for the translator when considering that the linguistic taboo is being used to describe Israel’s failures. The

95

Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 5-6.
Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 4.
97
Lozano, Isaiah 40-66, 27.
98
Lozano, Isaiah 40-66, 239.
99
Longman and Garland, eds. Expositor’s Commentary: Proverbs–Isaiah, 847; Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 892.
100
Lange, Schaff, Nägelsbach, Lowrie, and Moore, Isaiah, 678; Ogden and Sterk, A Handbook on Isaiah, 1774.
101
Lozano, Isaiah 40-66, 32-35.
102
Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 897.
103
Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 899.
96

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

34

genre of the impassioned sermon prayer lends itself to emotionally charged language, especially when
buffeted by regular interruptions and accusations against God. The themes of God’s holiness and
sovereignty are in stark contrast to the sins of Israel; it is reasonable to consider that the purpose for using
apparently vulgar images here is to emphasize such contrast.
Linguistic Taboo Analysis
The linguistic taboo in question is the Hebrew word ‫ עִּ ִּ ִּ֖דים‬translated as “filthy” in the translation
above. The first half of the verse (Isaiah 64:6) reads as follows in the Hebrew, with my glossing and
translation below.

‫כל־צִּ ְׁדקֹ ָ֑תינו‬
‫כל־ צִּ ְׁדקֹ ָ֑תי נו‬
‫כֹ ל צְׁ דקה ֲא ַַ֫נחְׁ נו‬

‫עִּ ִּ ִּ֖דים‬
‫עִּ ִּ ִּ֖דים‬
‫עִּ דה‬

‫וכְׁ ֶ ַּ֥בגֶד‬
‫ֶ ַּ֥בגֶד‬
ְׁ‫כ‬
‫ַ֫ ֶבגֶד‬
ְׁ‫כ‬

‫ו‬
ְׁ‫ו‬

‫כ ָֻּּ֔לנו‬
‫נו‬
‫כ ָֻּּ֔ל‬
‫כֹ ל ֲא ַַ֫נחְׁ נו‬

‫כַטמא‬
‫טמא‬
ַ
‫טמא‬
ַ‫ה‬

‫כ‬
ְׁ‫כ‬

‫ַנְׁהי‬
ִ֤ ִּ ‫ו‬
‫נְׁהי‬
ִ֤ ִּ
‫ַו‬
‫היה‬
ְׁ‫ו‬

1pl

fem pl
cons

sg
cons

masc pl

sg cons

prep

conj

1pl

sg
cons

abs sg

article

prep

Qal
wayyiqtol
1pl imp

conj

our

righteous
deed

all

menstruation

garment

like

and

we

all

unclean

the

like

we have

and

And we have all become like one who is unclean, and like a menstruation garment are all our righteous deeds.

‫( עִּ דה‬S5708) is defined as “n.f. menstruation” by Brown-Driver-Briggs104 and “menstruation, woman’s
period, i.e., the action of a discharge of blood and tissue debris from the uterus, with the associative
meaning of ceremonial uncleanness and undesirable filth” by Swanson.105 This is the only passage of the
Bible that uses this Hebrew word, which makes it difficult to definitively identify the meaning and impact
of the taboo word for the original audience. The word appears not to be a euphemism with the purpose of
avoiding the discomfort of the image. However, it also appears not to be a dysphemism using a
derogatory term to refer to the taboo concept. In this case it seems likely that ‫ עִּ דה‬is an orthophemism.
The other two words commonly used for menstruation in the Hebrew Bible are ‫( נִּדה‬S5079) and
‫( צֹ אה‬S6675). ‫ נִּדה‬means “menstruation, woman’s period, i.e., the action of a discharge of blood and tissue
debris from the uterus, with the associative meaning of ceremonial uncleanness and undesirable filth;

104
105

Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 723.
Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

35

…impurity, corruption, i.e., that which is a sin against a standard, implying defilement and uncleanness of
an act; …defilement, uncleanness, i.e., that which is no longer sanctified and so common and
ceremonially impure”106 and occurs 29 times, especially in Numbers, Leviticus, and Ezekiel, but notably
not in Isaiah.107 The uses in Numbers and Leviticus mostly refer directly to the physical experience of
menstruation; however, the uses in Ezekiel and other prophetic books are metaphorical, often referring to
the sins of Israel. In contrast, ‫ צֹ אה‬occurs only five times, three of which are in the book of Isaiah (chapters
4, 28, and 36).108 It is defined more broadly as “excrement, feces, i.e., human dung as a waste product of
the body, with a focus on the foulness of the organic matter” in most uses, meaning menstruation or
vaginal discharge only in Isaiah 4:4, and possibly 2 Kings 18:27.109 If the author chose the word ‫עִּ דה‬
rather than the other two more commonly used words for menstruation in order to avoid the ambiguity of
other meanings, there is strong reasoning to maintain the image of menstruation in a translation, where
possible.
Some commentaries do not give any special attention to the linguistic taboo employed in this
verse. Watts skips over it entirely, opting for more generic language of defilement that is unrelated to
menstruation. 110 Walker and Marteens take the word to mean “time” and suggest that the connection to
menstruation is not explicit, but if it is intended, “the picture is of a defiled people viewed as repulsive
and disqualified from God’s presence.”111 Lange et al. identifies the image of a menstrual garment but
does not develop the connection between it and defilement.112
Ogden and Sterk explain that menstrual blood “made a woman “unclean,” not in a sanitary sense,
but in a ritual sense.” They argue that the linguistic taboo “was intended to shock its readers” in order to
drive the theological statement that “even their attempts at goodness fail and cannot restore their

106

Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.
Brown, Driver and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 622.
108
Brown, Driver and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 844.
109
Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.
110
Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 905.
111
Walker and Martens, Cornerstone: Isaiah, Jeremiah, & Lamentations, 274-275.
112
Lange, Schaff, Nägelsbach, Lowrie, and Moore, Isaiah, 684.
107

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

36

relationship with God.”113 Cabal, et al. similarly says this comparison is made “strikingly” and explains
the role of ritual cleanness in the practices of worship.114 Oswalt states this comparison clearly, explaining
that the menstruation was seen as an absence of “the sign of new life coming, but of the lack of
conception” and so the comparison is made with the righteous acts of the corrupt Israelites which are
“self-serving and self-enhancing.”115 The image of menstruation makes the comparison with both the
ritual uncleanness and the lack of new life in ways that a simpler image of soiled garments could not
make. Whether the author intended to draw this comparison, the image would likely have been in mind
for the Israelites.
4.2.2 Translation Guidance
The topic of MENSTRUATION will not be taboo in every language, and even those languages
where it is will have different ways of expressing the taboo. The translation will need to take into account
the sociolinguistic context of the RL in order to convey the meaning of the source text.
The Word is Not Taboo in the Receptor Language
Translating an orthophemistic expression that is taboo in the SL and not in the RL may seem
deceptively easy. In this case, the orthophemism can be directly expressed using the appropriate term for
menstruation in the RL, since there would be no prohibitions around the word. However, the exegesis
above demonstrated the emotional impact that ‫ עִּ דה‬would have had on its Hebrew-speaking audience and
the way that impact supports the themes of the passage. It is important to consider whether the translation
can be improved by seeking to transfer some of the semantic and pragmatic meaning of ‫ עִּ דה‬in the RL
translation.
The Word is Taboo in the Receptor Language
If the taboo is in both the SL and RL, the implicit information in the Hebrew may carry over
directly to the RL. In that case, the translation should be able to utilize a RL orthophemism and achieve

113

Ogden and Sterk, A Handbook on Isaiah, 1789.
Cabal, Brand, Clendenen, Copan, Moreland, and Powell, The Apologetics Study Bible, 1080.
115
Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 626.
114

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

37

the same impact on the audience. Extensive community checking will be needed to determine if the goal
is being achieved. The linguistic taboo may be more shocking than what an audience is used to if the
translations they are familiar with use a different translation (see common English translations of this
verse below). The translator will need to be careful to determine if the impact on the audience is
comparable to what would be expected from the 7th century BC audience, without causing too much
offense or discomfort from a modern audience in a different cultural situation.
Even if the taboo is in the RL, it is likely that the nature of the taboo will be culturally different.
For example, taboos around menstruation in Israelite culture were tied to God’s laws about ritual purity.
They could not be separated from their understanding about life and conception. In western Englishspeaking culture, taboos around menstruation have more to do with physical cleanliness and taboos about
sexual reproduction. In situations like this, the metaphor in Isaiah may have some level of implicit
information that needs to be made explicit in order to convey the meaning accurately.
Additional Considerations
There are additional questions to explore when deciding how best to translate a linguistic taboo.
As with any other translation process, evaluating translations which have already been completed in the
RL or a LWC can provide valuable information and context. For example, this verse has been translated
with little variation in some of the most common English Bibles. Abernathy et al. summarize various
English translations by saying “most versions employ euphemisms and restructuring for “garments of
menstruation.”116 In comparison to the translation of the NRSV given at the beginning of this section,
some other common English Bible translations express the verse in the following ways:
ESV: “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a
polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”
NASB: “For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a
filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”

116

Abernathy, Bostrom, Jones, Pohlig, and Zwierzynski, Old Testament Lectionary, Is 64:5.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

38

NIV: “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy
rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.”
KJV: “But we are all as an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; And we
all do fade as a leaf; And our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.”
While evaluating other translations, it is also important to consider how the translations have been
received by their audiences, either reading the Bible in print or hearing the translation in sermons or other
scripture engagement materials, if that data is available. For example, the 19th century scholar Adam
Clarke points out in his commentary on Isaiah that “preachers were freely using the phrase filthy rags” to
refer to sin in a broad sense, without understanding the context or meaning. He suggests that many
congregants would “blush for the incautious man and his ‘filthy rags’!”117 In this case, it is apparent that
the choice to translate using a euphemism has removed the euphemism from its referent so much that the
image has been lost and impact changed from its intended meaning in the passage.
Another consideration is that of local and national censorship or media usage. Many cultures and
countries have restrictions around linguistic taboos. It would be counterproductive to use a word that
would prevent the Bible from being printed by national printing companies, sold in the appropriate stores,
or read on radio broadcasts. The language used needs to be appropriate for the intended audience to
ensure they have access. Similarly, the use of linguistic taboos in other forms of media can inform what is
legal as well as what is acceptable in a Bible translation. A word that is used only in certain restricted
media may not be the best choice for scripture.
Potential Translation of Isaiah 64:6
Menstruation is taboo in English and it is likely that an orthophemistic expression will elicit a similar
emotional response for the RL audience as it did for the ST audience. The “menstrual cloth” image in
Hebrew refers to menstrual blood; however, a “menstrual pad” in English might elicit a sterile image of
packages in the store if the translation does not include the modifier “used” or “dirty.”

117

Adam Clarke, as qtd. in Lozano, Isaiah 40-66, 260.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

39

We have all become like one who is unclean, / and all our righteous deeds are like a used menstrual
product. / We all fade like a leaf, / and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

4.3 1 Kings 14:10
Therefore I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam every male, both
bond and free in Israel, and will consume the house of Jeroboam, just as one burns up dung until it is all
gone.
4.3.1 Exegesis
Historical and Literary Context
The books of 1 and 2 Kings were separated into separate books in the LXX, but the text was
originally contained in a single work.118 The LXX called these books the third and fourth Books of
Kingdoms, following what is now 1 and 2 Samuel. This division was maintained through the Vulgate. 119
They belong to the Nevi'im (Prophets) in the Hebrew Bible, but are counted as part of the Historical
Books in the English Bible.
The narrative of Kings is considered a complete unit from start to finish; however, the text itself
admits to using a variety of source material in its compilation. As such, the discussion of authorship and
dating is relevant for both the source materials when they were written and the final assembling of the
text. The date of the final compilation is easy to determine within a short window, due to the events both
in the text and notably absent from the text. 2 Kings concludes with the release of Jehoiachin from
Babylon in 562/561 BC, so we know that the book was compiled after this event. However, there is no
mention in the text of Cyrus or the return from Babylonian exile which took place in 536.120 The tone and

Slager, “Preface,” Handbook on 1 & 2 Kings, 2.
Patterson and Austel, “1, 2 Kings,” Expositor’s Commentary: 1 Samuel–2 Kings, 626.
120
Lange, et al., 1 Kings, 1.
118
119

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

40

themes of the book lead scholars to believe that this event would have been noted if the author had
knowledge of it.121 Therefore, it is likely that the books of Kings were compiled between 561-536 BC.122
Scholars agree that the author of the book cannot be definitively identified; however, there are
well established hypotheses.123 Jewish tradition taught that the prophet Jeremiah was the author; however,
recent scholars dismiss that possibility.124 Jeremiah would have been over 80 years old at the time when
the book was completed, and is said to have moved to Egypt after the destruction of Jerusalem until his
death. As some scholars believe that Kings was written in Babylon, Jeremiah is not a likely author. 125
However, a popular suggestion is that Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch, is the author/editor of Kings and the
entire Deuteronomistic History from Joshua to Kings.126
Regardless of the identity of the author, the intended audience is clear. The book of 1-2 Kings is
addressing “Jews living in exile in Babylon” in order to explain the end of the Davidic kingdom and
Israel’s subsequent exile.127 This provides important context for understanding not only the themes being
communicated, but also the emotion, and the tone used to communicate the intended message.
The book of 1-2 Kings functions as an answer to the book of Judges earlier in the
Deuteronomistic History: “In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in
their own eyes” (Judges 21:25). The Davidic kingdom was supposed to have been the answer to this
problem, but 1-2 Kings demonstrates that “even when there were kings in the land, they and the people
still ‘did whatever seemed right in their own eyes.’”128 One important theme for context of this verse is
the generational punishment for sin. The Israelites knew that Yahweh is “slow to anger, and abounding in
steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the

121

Barnes, 1-2 Kings, 6.
Barnes, 1-2 Kings, 7.
123
Barnes, 1-2 Kings, 4.
124
Slager, “Preface,” A Handbook on 1 & 2 Kings, 6.
125
Lange, et al., 1 Kings, 1–2.
126
Barnes, 1-2 Kings, 5.
127
Barnes, 1-2 Kings, 9–10.
128
Barnes, 1-2 Kings, 3.
122

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

41

iniquity of the parents upon the children to the third and the fourth generation.” (Numbers 14:18). This
theme is demonstrated throughout the book of 1-2 Kings, leading up to the Babylonian exile.129
Linguistic Taboo Analysis
The linguistic taboo in question is the Hebrew word ‫ מַ ְׁש ִּ ִּ֣תין בְׁ ָּ֔ ִּקיר‬translated as “male” in the
translation above. The first half of the verse (1 Kings 14:10) reads as follows in the Hebrew, with my
glossing and translation below.

‫וְׁ הִּ כְׁ ַר ִּ ִ֤תי‬
‫כרת‬
‫כרת‬
Hifʿîl verb
weqaal (perfect)
1 sg
cut off

ְׁ‫ו‬
‫ו‬

‫ירבְׁ ָּ֔עם‬
‫ירבְׁ עם‬
‫ירבְׁ עם‬

‫אֶ ל־בִּ֣ית‬
‫ַ֫ ַביִּ ת‬
‫אֶ ל‬
‫ַ֫ ַביִּ ת‬
‫אֶ ל‬

‫רעה‬
‫רעה‬
‫ַרע‬

‫מ ִּ ִ֤ביא‬
‫בוא‬
‫בוא‬
Hifʿîl verb
participle
masc, sg, abs
bring (cause to come)

conj

noun
masc, sg, abs

noun
sg, cons

prep

noun
fem, sg, abs

and

Jeroboam

house

to

evil

‫בְׁ יִּ ְׁשר ָ֑אל‬
‫יִּשראל‬
ְׁ
ְׁ‫ב‬
‫יִּשראל‬
ְׁ
ְׁ‫ב‬
noun
sg, abs

prep

Israel

in

‫וְׁ עזִּ֖ וב‬
‫עזב‬
‫עזב‬
Qal verb
passive participle
masc, sg, abs
forsake

ְׁ‫ו‬
‫ו‬
conj
and

‫ע ַּ֥צור‬
‫עצר‬
‫עצר‬
Qal verb
passive participle
masc, sg, abs
restrain

‫בְׁ ָּ֔ ִּקיר‬
‫קִּ יר‬
ְׁ‫ב‬
‫קיר‬
ְׁ‫ב‬
noun
sg, abs

prep

wall

in

‫הִּ נְׁ ִ֨ ִּני‬
‫אֲנִּ י‬
‫אֲנִּ י‬

‫הִּ נה‬
‫הנה‬

‫ל ֵ֗כן‬
‫לכן‬
‫לכן‬

pronoun,
1sg

interj

adverb

I

behold

therefore

‫מַ ְׁש ִּ ִּ֣תין‬
‫שין‬
‫שין‬
Qal verb
participle
masc, sg, abs
urinate

‫לְׁ יָֽרבְׁ עם‬
‫ירבְׁ עם‬
ְׁ‫ל‬
‫ירבְׁ עם‬
ְׁ‫ל‬
noun
masc, sg, abs

prep

Jeroboam

from

Therefore, look I will bring evil to the house of Jeroboam, and I will cut off from Jeroboam
the one who urinates on the wall, both slave and free, in Israel.

The word ‫ שין‬literally means “urinate” and, in its participle form with ‫( בְׁ ָּ֔ ִּקיר‬on the wall), is used as an
idiom for “male.”130 The root ‫ שין‬occurs eight times in the Bible. The noun, ‫שַַ֫ יִּן‬, occurs once in 2 Kings
and once in Isaiah, while the verb, ‫שין‬,
ִּ occurs six times, all in 1-2 Kings or 1 Samuel. The two usages of
the noun form are referring literally to urine in the accounts of Sennacherib’s threat against King
Hezekiah. There are no other words translated as urine in the Bible. The six verbs are all participles and
occur as part of an idiom which refers to male persons. There are other words that are more commonly
used to refer to males; ‫ זכר‬occurs 31 times and ‫ בן‬is used in similar contexts to refer to male descendants
or populations.

129
130

Barnes, 1-2 Kings, 18.
Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

42

Over its six occurrences in the Bible, it is clear that ‫ מַ ְׁש ִּ ִּ֣תין בְׁ ָּ֔ ִּקיר‬is not just an idiom but is also an
example of dysphemism. There is an “element of contempt” in the phrase.131 Some scholars have
suggested that the expression originally referred to dogs rather than humans, but regardless it “was not an
honorable way of alluding to the male sex.”132 This reading is supported by the literary context. Given the
larger themes of 1-2 Kings dealing with generational punishment for sin and the tone of this particular
episode, it makes sense that the language used would be offensive. The idiom is intended to convey a
sense of vengeance and provoke the audience to recognize their shame.
4.3.2 Translation Guidance
Because ‫ מַ ְׁש ִּ ִּ֣תין בְׁ ָּ֔ ִּקיר‬is an idiom for “male,” it is most important for the translator to convey the
meaning “male” over the literal meaning “one who urinates on the wall.” In many cases, it will not be
natural or make sense to retain anything to do with “urine” into the RL translation. It could be appropriate
to note the Hebrew idiom with a footnote. However, given that the SL conveys a level of offense toward
the original audience in Babylonian exile, the translator should attempt to convey the text with a similar
level of emotional reaction. Additionally, the translator should consider the issue of comprehension
through community checking, as the idiom “one who urinates on the wall,” or even a reference to
urination may not communicate the meaning “male” clearly.
Quite a few commentaries suggest that a literal translation would be offensive and too vulgar for
the audience. The question the translator needs to consider is the level of offense and discomfort the term
would have held for the historical Hebrew audience in Babylonian exile. Assuming that there was some
level of offense and discomfort to the original audience, the translation should not attempt to remove that
completely, but rather to express a similar level to the receptor audience without losing all
appropriateness. If the taboo of urination does not transfer naturally as a dysphemism for males, there
may be other culturally appropriate dysphemisms that could be utilized.

131
132

Barnes, 1-2 Kings, 129.
Lange, et al., 1 Kings, 168.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

43

The Word is Not Taboo in the Receptor Language
Typically, when figurative language such as an idiom is not taboo or otherwise excessively
complicated to translate, it makes the translator’s job easier. However, in this instance the SL text does
intentionally communicate offense to its audience, and so the translation should attempt to express that.
When there is no linguistic taboo in the RL for urination, the translator may need to be more creative. As
with other idioms, it could be an option to swap the phrase with a different idiom in the RL. This would
ideally be a very mild insult to communicate offense without causing too much discomfort. The term
could be briefly explained in a footnote with a note indicating the offensive word. For example, “… ‘the
one who urinates on the wall,’ refers to all men derisively.”
The translator should test any dysphemistic or other emotionally charged translation choices
extensively with the community in order to understand the reaction the word taboo elicits. It is possible
that the use of offensive language in this passage would distract the audience enough to prevent them
from understanding the intended meaning and themes of the passage. In this case, the translator will need
to find a less offensive and distracting alternative.
The Word is Taboo in the Receptor Language
When the RL has a linguistic taboo for URINATION, the translator will need to determine if there
is a dysphemism in the vocabulary and how offensive the dysphemism is through community checking. If
the dysphemism is inappropriate (the offense it causes would be too distracting or cause the text to lose
authority), there may be an orthophemism that causes less offense but is still uncomfortable. Using the
taboo term in a footnote as described above may also remove the taboo from the text enough to be more
appropriate for some audiences. It will probably not be accurate to translate with a euphemism in this
instance. Some further explanation of the idiom may be necessary to avoid the audience believing the
punishment is solely for public urination or a similar misunderstanding. These considerations are
sometimes impacted by the availability of other scripture engagement materials on the passage in
question.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

44

Additional Considerations
The United Bible Societies’ Handbook on this passage says in multiple places that this idiom
would have been offensive to its audience and that most modern translations “attempt to express the
meaning clearly and less offensively to the reader.” 133 In comparison to the translation of the NRSV given
at the beginning of this section, some other common English Bible translations express the verse in the
following ways:
ESV: “therefore behold, I will bring harm upon the house of Jeroboam and will cut off from
Jeroboam every male, both bond and free in Israel, and will burn up the house of Jeroboam, as a
man burns up dung until it is all gone.”
NASB: “therefore, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam
every male, both bond and free in Israel, and will consume the house of Jeroboam, just as one
burns up dung until it is all gone.”
NIV: “‘Because of this, I am going to bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from
Jeroboam every last male in Israel—slave or free. I will burn up the house of Jeroboam as one
burns dung, until it is all gone.”
KJV: “Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from
Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take
away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.”
Notably, the KJV translates “him that pisseth against the wall”; however, the impact of the word piss is
likely different today than it was a few centuries ago. This literal translation of the idiom has probably
also caused some confusion when an audience encounters it without any further explanation.
The translator may need to make adjustments in order to accommodate restrictions due to the
speaker of this verse being Yahweh, through the mouth of a prophet. Likewise, within the literary context,
Ahijah, a male prophet, is conveying this message from God to a woman. Some cultures may have

133

Slager, “Preface,” A Handbook on 1 & 2 Kings, 454.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

45

differing levels of tolerance for a man using offensive language in front of a woman, even within the
boundaries of a story.
Potential Translation of 1 Kings 14:10
The ST idiom is not natural to English and so many translations choose to translate this dysphemism as
“male.” However, a part of the intent of the ST is to cause offense and so the translation should
consider utilizing a dysphemism. The most accurate translation would be a pejorative term for men,
with as little reference to any specific behaviors or attributes aside from gender. As the tone of the ST
is fairly colloquial, I think a potential translation could be “good-for-nothing man.” This expression
conveys both the gender of the people and the anger felt by the speaker.
Therefore I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam every good-fornothing man, both bond and free in Israel, and will consume the house of Jeroboam, just as one burns
up dung until it is all gone.
As mentioned earlier in the paper, linguistic taboos are particularly volatile and subject to language
change. This is especially true of slurs and other dysphemistic expressions. In a standard Bible
translation, the translator will want to be cautious and as much as possible choose words which will not
have a completely different meaning within a few decades. If community checking determines that
such a translation would not communicate effectively and no better dysphemism is available, it is
worth noting that the other half of the verse contains a second dysphemism which can communicate the
same emotional intention and that translating this idiom without a linguistic taboo would not lose the
overall emotional impact of the verse.

4.4 Genesis 17:11
You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and
you.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

46

4.4.1 Exegesis
Historical and Literary Context
Genesis is the first book of the Bible, introducing the Pentateuch of the Christian Old Testament
and the Torah of the Hebrew Bible. It is similar to other Ancient Near East creation myths and provides
the foundational story of Israel.134 The author of Genesis is not cited directly in the text, and scholars have
discussed a wide range of theories regarding the authorship and dating of the book. Jewish tradition holds
that Moses authored the entire Pentateuch, a view supported by the New Testament, including the
teachings of Jesus.135 If Moses is the author or editor, the book would have been completed around 1500
to 1230 BC, depending on how the dates of the historical events are determined.136
This tradition was first challenged in the eighteenth century. A French scholar suggested that
Genesis was actually composed of “two primary, parallel sources (one of which referred to the deity as
“Yahweh,” and the other referred to the deity as “Elohim”), plus ten other fragments” edited by Moses
into a single narrative.137 This view has been further developed by later scholars to distinguish between
four sources: The Yahwist (J) (850 BC or 960 BC), The Elohist (E) (850 BC), Deuteronomy (D) (ca. 620
BC), and The Priestly Writer (P) (550–450 BC).138 As discussed previously, linguistic analysis can be
useful in supporting findings about author and dating of books, but some scholars argue that the divine
names and other linguistic criteria used to determine the source materials of Genesis are not strong
enough to be decisive.139 The manuscripts available for the text of Genesis are from around the ninth
century; very few fragments of the text have been discovered at Qumran and other locations, unlike other
books of the Pentateuch like Deuteronomy.140 It is also likely that the stories in Genesis were created and

134

Kidner, Genesis, 15.
Sailhamer, “Genesis,” Expositor’s Commentary: Genesis–Leviticus, 23.
136
Barnwell and Kuhn, Translator’s Notes On Genesis.
137
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 12.
138
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 14.
139
Kidner, Genesis, 21-22.
140
Lange, et al., Genesis, 104.
135

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

47

passed down through oral tradition before they were ever written down, although this is difficult to study
with limited records.141
While the author and dating of the book of Genesis can provide meaningful insight for exegetical
study of the text, Sailhamer points out that it is also important to remember that “the Pentateuch itself
comes to us as an anonymous work and was apparently intended to be read as such.”142 The two main
genres in the book of Genesis are genealogy and historical narrative. Historical narrative is the “realistic
re-presentation of past events for the purpose of instruction.”143 Understanding that the genre is serving
both narrative and instructional purposes is important to interpreting the text and its impact on the
audience. The role of the book in the metanarrative of scripture also demonstrates the “theological and
historical basis” that Genesis gives to Israel. 144 The stories of Genesis are shared with the intention of
conveying the cultural origin story of Israel and building a sense of community and purpose, and
ultimately revealing something of God’s character and purposes.
This passage is the first introduction to circumcision and its role in Israel’s covenant with God.
Circumcision was a common practice in many ancient cultures such as Egyptian, Canaanite, and other
Semitic peoples.145 The practice was traditionally associated with a few different purposes: physical
health to prevent infection, purification, metaphysical symbolism for sex, and fertility.146 As a “major rite
of passage, usually at puberty,” the practice itself “is a preparation for marriage, marks a man’s coming of
age, or is an offering to the deity”147 The practice is common in many parts of the world today, but not
universal and will be unfamiliar to many cultures. The Bible clearly teaches that for the Israelites,
circumcision is “a symbol of purity, of loyalty to the covenant, and of separation from the life of the

141

Ross and Oswalt, Cornerstone: Genesis, Exodus, 7.
Sailhamer, “Genesis,” Expositor’s Commentary: Genesis–Leviticus, 25–26.
143
Sailhamer, “Genesis,” Expositor’s Commentary: Genesis–Leviticus, 38.
144
Ross and Oswalt, Cornerstone: Genesis, Exodus, 13.
145
Reyburn and Fry, A Handbook on Genesis, 371.
146
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 23.
147
Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 23.
142

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

48

world.”148 It is referenced frequently throughout scripture and is sometimes used metaphorically to
describe faith and salvation (Rom 2:28–29; Jer 9:26; Ezek 44:7–9).
Linguistic Taboo Analysis
The linguistic taboo in question is the Hebrew word ‫ ונְׁמַ לְׁ תֶֶּ֕ ם‬translated as “circumcise” in the
translation above. The first half of the verse (Genesis 17:11) reads as follows in the Hebrew, with my
glossing and translation below.

‫ע ְׁרל ְַׁתכֶ ָ֑ם‬
‫אַ תֶ ם‬
‫אתם‬
pronoun
2 masc pl
you (pl)

‫ע ְׁרלה‬
‫ע ְׁרלה‬

‫בְׁ ַ ִּ֣שר‬
‫בשר‬
‫בשר‬

noun
fem sg
cons
foreskin

noun
masc sg
cons
flesh

‫ִּ֖את‬
‫את‬
‫את‬
preposition, object
marker
-

‫ונְׁמַ לְׁ תֶֶּ֕ ם‬
‫מול‬
‫מלל‬

ְׁ‫ו‬
‫ו‬

Nifʿal verb
wᵊqātal (waw + perfect)
2 masc pl
circumcise

conj
and

And you all will circumcise the flesh of your foreskins

This situation is different than the previous examples in that the practice of circumcision was apparently
not considered taboo among the Israelites during the time this text was written. The evidence is limited to
the way the practice is referred to in scripture and it cannot be conclusively determined if there is a
linguistic taboo or not in this verse. The term used, ‫מול‬, occurs 32 times in the Old Testament throughout
the Pentateuch, historical books, and prophets. It most often is used when referring to the physical
practice of circumcision, but in some cases functions as a metaphor. For the purposes of this analysis, the
frequency of discussion, lack of figurative language, and diversity of genre, audience, etc. suggests a lack
of taboo rather than use of an orthophemism. In fact, the tone and genre of this verse as instructional and
formative would suggest that if it was taboo, a euphemism would necessarily need to be used.
4.4.2 Translation Guidance
While referring to circumcision was not taboo in Israel, it may be in other cultures where the
Bible is being translated today. This verse provides the opportunity to explore how to translate an
expression which is taboo only in the RL, but is not in the SL. It follows that the category previously used

148

Ross and Oswalt, Cornerstone: Genesis, Exodus, 121.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

49

of “The Word is Not Taboo in the Receptor Language” is not needed in this discussion as if that were
true, there would be no need to analyze for taboos in the verse.
The Word is Taboo in the Receptor Language
As demonstrated above, referring to circumcision was not taboo for the Israelites. There would
not have been an especially emotional response to its mention in the text. When translating the text for a
culture that may have taboos around circumcision, the translator should make an effort to navigate the
translation with as little offense or emotional impact as possible in order to most effectively convey the
meaning of the source text. As always, community checking will be essential in determining the
audience’s understanding and emotional response to the text.
Commentators and translation guides are clear to remind readers that circumcision may be taboo
in other cultures.149 Where the practice is known, the audience will already have expectations around how
and when it is to be done. It may be taboo to mention the practice with a wider audience and only
appropriate with a restricted group of people. The command in this passage “to circumcise all males
regardless of age may produce disgust and revulsion for readers.” 150 As that is not the intended impact of
the text, the translator will have to be careful in determining what expression to use to translate the
practice.
SIL’s Translator’s Notes suggests using a footnote or glossary entry. The United Bible Societies’
Handbook includes a lengthy discussion, advising translators,
“where a ready expression is not available, it may be necessary to use an indirect expression such
as “cut around,” “cut the skin,” “remove skin.” In some languages where this practice is
unknown, it may be necessary to say “cut the skin of the penis” or “cut the male” and leave it to
teaching to explain the sense… For societies that perform other operations on the penis, it may be
necessary to distinguish these operations from Jewish circumcision, which removed the entire
foreskin. In many societies that practice circumcision, there is a ritual in which it takes place; and

149
150

Barnwell and Kuhn, Translator’s Notes On Genesis, Ge 17:10.
Reyburn and Fry, A Handbook on Genesis, 371–372.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

50

in some cases it will be better to use the name of the ritual to refer to circumcision than to use
terms or expressions that refer to the physical operation.”151
These guides also warn the translator to be careful “not to use a term for circumcision that would be
vulgar or improper.”152
Additional Considerations
‫ מול‬is an important term in the Old Testament and the translator will want to be consistent in its
translation throughout. It will be important to reference all texts to ensure consistency and verify that the
translation choice is appropriate in each literary context.
The various audiences need to be considered in the translation process. As noted above, the taboo
around circumcision sometimes applies to certain groups of people and not others. However, the nature of
the Bible translation requires that it be language appropriate for a mixed audience in all occasions. As
much as possible, the translation needs to “avoid sounding vulgar and unsuitable for public reading.”153
Another thing to consider for a topic that is so closely tied to gender is that taboos in the RL may
vary based on the gender of the speakers and audience. The translator will need to rely on community
checking to determine to what extent a linguistic taboo is censored in the immediate context of a
community member reading the Bible aloud versus the literary context of God speaking to Abraham.
Similarly, this literary context is further complicated when considering the motivations of God as
the speaker. When analyzing linguistic taboo expressions, much of the impact on the audience is
determined by the motivations of the speaker. These motivations can include concerns about avoiding
shame for the social systems they are members of in the community. It is possible that these motivations
would not apply to God as the speaker in this passage. On the other hand, it is possible that God would
incarnationally take on the same communication norms. The translator will need to consider how their
audience reads this interaction and what limitations might be placed on the exchange.

151

Reyburn and Fry, A Handbook on Genesis, 371–372.
Barnwell and Kuhn, Translator’s Notes On Genesis, Ge 17:10.
153
Reyburn and Fry, A Handbook on Genesis, 373.
152

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

51

This text is not intended to be instructions on the procedure itself, but rather an explanation of the
significance of the practice. Some translations attempt to reflect this emphasis by altering the order of
these verses in order to communicate more logically. The NIV also considers the details of “flesh of your
foreskins” unnecessary and removes it from the translation.154 In comparison to the translation of the
NRSV given at the beginning of this section, some other common English Bible translations express the
verse in the following ways:
ESV: “You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the
covenant between me and you.”
NASB: “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the
covenant between Me and you.”
NIV: “You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and
you.”
KJV: “And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant
betwixt me and you.”
While not contributing to this discussion on linguistic taboos, it is important to consider in the
translation of this verse that if a culture does practice circumcision, the physical practice might be
different and the symbolism of the practice will almost certainly hold different meaning than it did for the
Israelites. The translator needs to be clear in communicating the meaning of circumcision in the Bible for
their audience to understand.155
Potential Translation of Genesis 17:11
Circumcision is taboo for the target English speaking audience. There is some flexibility in conversing
on the topic in religious spaces due to our familiarity with the theological concept, but an audience with
limited biblical literacy (especially male) would likely find this verse a little taboo – not to the point of

154
155

Reyburn and Fry, A Handbook on Genesis, 373.
Barnwell and Kuhn, Translator’s Notes On Genesis, Ge 17:10.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

52

distraction, but more than the ST audience. An orthophemism is the most appropriate translation.
Translating with “circumcise” is likely the best translation choice in order to be consistent with the rest
of the Bible translation and spiritual teachings. If further clarification is needed or if the use of clinical
language makes the concept more palatable based on community checking, the translation could use
“surgically remove from the male genitalia” in the text or in a footnote.
You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and
you.

4.5 Song of Songs 7:2
Your navel is a rounded bowl; / may it never lack mixed wine. / Your belly is a heap of wheat, / encircled
with lilies.
4.5.1 Exegesis
Song of Songs is the fourth book of the Ketuvim (‘Writings’) in the Hebrew Bible, where it falls
between Proverbs and Ruth. Longman suggests that the order is intended to connect the virtuous woman
presented in the final poem of Proverbs with the “virtuous and assertive women” presented in both Song
of Songs and Ruth.156 In the Christian Old Testament, Song of Songs falls between Ecclesiastes and
Isaiah. The book is also noteworthy for its inclusion in the Five Megillot (“Five Scrolls”), which consist
of Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. These scrolls are read over the course of
the year in Jewish tradition, starting with Song of Songs at Passover. Scholars suggest that the association
between this book and Passover came from an allegorical reading of the book, “beginning with the
Exodus and ending with the coming of the Messiah.”157

156
157

Longman, Song of Songs, 2.
Longman, Song of Songs, 2.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

53

Historical and Literary Context
The literary style of Song of Songs is poetry. The typical characteristics of Hebrew poetry are all
present in this book: “terseness, parallelism, imagery, and secondary poetical devices.”158 Some scholars
suggest that it is influenced by Egyptian love poetry and other lyric poetry throughout the Ancient Near
East (ANE).159 In terms of textual criticism, the manuscripts appear in good condition and have very little
variation between the Qumran and ancient versions.160 The four manuscripts of the book discovered at the
Dead Sea “rarely deviate from the Masoretic Text.”161
The authorship and dating of the book are more contentious issues. Traditionally, the book was
believed to have been written by Solomon, largely due to the inscription in the first verse.162 While the
inscription ‫ֲשר לִּ ְׁשֹלמֹ ה׃‬
ַּ֥ ֶ ‫ ִּ ַּ֥שיר הַ ִּש ִּ ִּ֖ירים א‬could mean that the text was authored by Solomon, the prefix in
question, ְׁ‫ל‬, could also mean written to Solomon, for him, or after the style of his writings. Some scholars
agree this attribution is not enough to determine Solomon was the author, but still argue that the book was
written during Solomon’s lifetime.163 Linguistic analysis has been used to suggest a later date, but the
specific arguments are not definitive. For example, the terms frequently considered to be Persian or Greek
loan words can possibly be traced to Sanskrit presence in Canaan, and the infrequent use of the wayyiqtol
form can be explained by evidence that wayyiqtol is often not found in lyric poetry.164 Many scholars
simply admit that it is not possible to definitively determine either the author or date, instead identifying
that the final form of the book was likely completed “by the end of the Old Testament time period around
the end of the fourth century BC.”165
This brings up the question of the structure and unity of the book. There are a few different
schools of thought when it comes to the structure and outline of Song of Songs. Some scholars argue that

158

Longman, Song of Songs, 9.
Garrett, Song of Songs, Lamentations,13.
160
Garrett, Song of Songs, Lamentations, 15.
161
Konkel and Longman, Cornerstone: Job, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, 342.
162
Garrett, Song of Songs, Lamentations, 23.
163
Garrett, Song of Songs, Lamentations, 25.
164
Garrett, Song of Songs, Lamentations, 17-18.
165
Konkel and Longman, Cornerstone: Job, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, 342.
159

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

54

the Song tells a story and that there is a cohesive narrative that can be read through the poem. It has been
suggested that it should be read in the context of a culture which does not follow a linear timeline in their
historical accounts, either oral or written, and instead utilizes “cyclical with similar themes and elements
combining and recombining” into a single historical account.166 Even when the book is considered as love
poetry without any narrative to be identified, there is disagreement among scholars regarding how many
poems are included. Some see the book as a single, continuous poem, comparing it to epic poetry in other
ANE cultures.167 Most scholars consider the book to be made up of multiple poems, whether combined
into “a single composition through the use of refrains and common images and characters” 168 or an
anthology of distinct love poems. Murphy identifies 9 divisions, Goulder analyzes 14 poems, Longman
finds 23, and Keel claims the book has 42 poems.169
Beyond the structure and outline, there is also disagreement on the number and identity of the
speakers throughout the book. Some translations add titles or pronouns to distinguish between speakers
based on their interpretations, but the Hebrew text does not make those distinctions, and interpretations
vary. Ogden and Zogbo explain that “the original listeners had little difficulty in knowing who was
speaking and when the speakers changed,” but modern readers have more trouble.170
Another place where there is division among scholars is regarding the purpose of the book and
why it belongs in the canon of scripture. Taken at face value, “each vignette speaks to the human
experience of love, and all who read may enter therein to taste and savor its sweet and bitter fruits.”171
However, many scholars over the centuries have argued that its presence in the canon suggests the book
must have additional meaning, due to the book’s “unashamedly sexual, and not apparently religious”
content.172 There are a variety of popular allegorical interpretations, which are sometimes considered to

166

Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on the Song of Songs, 6.
Garrett, Song of Songs, Lamentations, 217–218.
168
Konkel and Longman, Cornerstone: Job, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, 343.
169
Garrett, Song of Songs, Lamentations, 25.
170
Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on the Song of Songs, 7.
171
Schwab, “Song of Songs,” Expositor’s Commentary: Proverbs–Isaiah, 375.
172
Snaith, Song of Songs, 5.
167

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

55

have the common trait of basing their analyses on “the Song’s canonical context itself (rather than the text
of the Song).”173 Some scholars acknowledge that aspects of the allegorical interpretations are valuable,
while maintaining that these aspects do not “validate allegorization as such.”174 These scholars argue that
the book’s inclusion in the canon is appropriate as a piece of wisdom literature, and does not require
special justification through allegory or other interpretative methods. In other ancient literature that has
been studied, “wisdom literature comprises a questioning exploration of and common-sense orientation to
everyday life, from the big questions of meaning to the nooks and crannies of human experience.”175 As
such, the Song of Songs is contributing to the collection of wisdom literature in the Old Testament,
specifically focused on the human experience of sexual love.
One particular feature of this book deserves mention as it is relevant to the analysis of the specific
verse being studied here. The Song of Songs utilizes a love song called wasf, named for an Arabic term
meaning ‘descriptive song.’176 This type of love song is unique for its expression of the physical beauty of
a lover, using descriptive imagery and “exotic vocabulary.” Wasf is a common feature in a variety of
other ANE love songs and poetry. 177 Other instances of wasfs in this book can be found in chapters 4, 5,
and 7.
Linguistic Taboo Analysis
The linguistic taboo in question is the Hebrew word ‫ ש ְׁרר‬translated as “navel” in the translation
above. The first half of the verse (Song of Songs 7:2) reads as follows in the Hebrew, with my glossing
and translation below.

Schwab, “Song of Songs,” Expositor’s Commentary: Proverbs–Isaiah, 371.
Garrett, Song of Songs, Lamentations, 76.
175
Coleson and Derck, Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther, 105.
176
Coleson and Derck, Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther, 105.
177
Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on the Song of Songs, 2.
173
174

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

‫הַ ָ֑מזֶג‬
‫ָ֑מזֶג‬
‫ַ֫ ֶמזֶג‬
noun
sg, abs
mixed wine

ַ‫ה‬
ַ‫ה‬

‫אַ ל־יֶחְׁ ַסִּ֖ר‬
‫יֶחְׁ ַסִּ֖ר‬
‫אַ ל־‬
‫חסר‬
‫אַ ל‬

‫הַ סַָּ֔ הַ ר‬
‫סַָּ֔ הַ ר‬
ַ‫ה‬
‫סַַ֫ הַ ר‬
ַ‫ה‬

56

‫אַ גַ ִָּֽ֣ן‬
‫אַ גַ ִָּֽ֣ן‬
‫אַ גן‬

‫ש ְׁררך‬
‫ך‬
‫אַ ְׁת‬

‫ש ְׁרר‬
‫שֹר‬

article

Qal verb
yiqtōl (impf),
3ms, jussive

negation

noun
sg, abs

article

noun
sg, cons

pronoun
2fs

noun
sg, cons

a

may it lack

not

round

a

bowl

your

navel

Your navel is a round bowl, may it never lack mixed wine.

Initially, this verse seems very similar to the example in John 11:11 where κεκοίμηται is used
euphemistically to refer to DEATH. However, the function of this euphemism is different. In many cases,
euphemism is used to reduce the emotional stimulation; however, throughout the Song of Songs, the “sex
talk is candid. Euphemism is employed to heighten, not disguise, their pleasure in each other.”178 This
“intensity of expression”179 produced by poetic language and euphemism means that translators should
be mindful of this dynamic in their approach to the translation of euphemism.
The word in question, ‫שֹר‬, is used three times in the Hebrew Bible. It is defined as either the
“navel, a visible, external depression in the middle of the abdomen that marks where the umbilical cord
once resided” or the actual “umbilical cord.” 180 In addition to this verse, it is also used in Ezekiel 16:4
and Proverbs 3:8. In Ezekiel the word refers to an umbilical cord, literally the cord connected to the navel,
or “navel-string.”181 This is the only passage of the Bible where an umbilical cord is discussed. Its usage
in Proverbs is an example of synecdoche, with the word often being translated as ‘body’ (“healing for
your body and strength for your bones”). Accordingly, its usage in Song of Songs is the only instance
where ‫ שֹ ר‬refers to the navel. Other verses that reference the navel, stomach, or belly in English are
translating a half dozen other Hebrew terms.
Many commentators and most dictionary entries interpret ‫ שֹ ר‬in this context as a double entendre
referring to the woman’s vulva.182 As referenced above, the Song of Songs is full of double meaning,

178

Coleson and Derck, Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther, 107.
Konkel and Longman, Cornerstone: Job, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, 343.
180
Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.
181
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 1057.
182
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 1057.
179

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

57

especially in its use of descriptive imagery. A translation can choose to translate these images directly, as
some scholars recommend, possibly with a footnote to make clear the innuendo.183 In order to provide a
modern reader meaning as close as possible to the source text, the translation should attempt to convey
both the denotative and connotative meanings. Konkel and Longman describe this task as an effort “to
explain the metaphors and do our best to describe the emotions that its authors are trying to elicit from the
readers.”184
There is an etymological argument sometimes made that the Hebrew ‫ שֹ ר‬is related to the Arabic
word ‫( سِر‬sirrun) which means “secret” and sometimes refers to genitals. However, the etymology is more
likely related to the Arabic word ‫( سُر‬surrun) and the connection is not strong enough to suggest a definite
additional meaning. 185 The use of “navel” euphemistically for “vulva” is more likely metaphorical than
etymological.186 The image of the bowl in the metaphor can be suitably applied to either the navel or
vulva, in general anatomical sense. However, as Longman explains further, the similarity of wetness
(“never lack mixed wine”) makes more sense for the vulva than the navel. 187
One of the most frequently cited arguments in favor of understanding ‫ שֹ ר‬as referring to the vulva
is its placement inside the wasf in 7:1-9. The man and woman have each sung wasfs earlier in the book,
both of which began with “consideration of the beloved’s head.” In this song, the man reverses the order
and begins with the woman’s feet and moves up to her hair. 188 The navel in this verse falls between her
thighs (‫)ירך‬189 in 7:1 and belly (‫)בטֶ ן‬
ֶ ַ֫ 190 in 7:2b, which suggests that the body part being referenced is
actually lower on her body, namely her vulva.191 Some commentators also suggest that the belly

183

Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on the Song of Songs, 196.
Konkel and Longman, Cornerstone: Job, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, 343.
185
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 1057.
186
Longman, Song of Songs, 194–195.
187
Longman, Song of Songs, 194–195.
188
Coleson and Derck, Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther, 181.
189
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 437. “thigh, loin, side, base.”
190
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 105. “belly, body, womb.”
191
Schwab, “Song of Songs,” Expositor’s Commentary: Proverbs–Isaiah, 418.
184

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

58

referenced in the second half of this verse is also a euphemism for what the NLT translates as “between
your thighs.” 192 Either way, the understanding of navel as a euphemism is supported.
4.5.2 Translation Guidance
SIL’s Translator’s Notes on the Song of Songs advises that the text should “be translated openly
without being offensive” and cautions against translations that either “overemphasize the sexual nature of
the imagery and themes” or “deny references to sexuality, as some allegorical interpretations do.”193 The
authors also recommend translating with the “same tone of sexual purity that is found in other OT books,”
although they neglect any further discussion of the ways in which tone is influenced by literary context
and cultural expectations.194 The United Bible Societies commentary echoes this caution explaining,
“each culture and language group has a different way of treating the subject of love… thus our challenge
is to convey clearly the meaning of the original figurative expressions, while recognizing the limits of
what our own communities can accept.”195
The Word is Not Taboo in the Receptor Language
In a situation where there is no linguistic taboo around female genitalia and more specifically the
vulva, the translator will want to still attempt to translate the connotative and denotative meanings as
closely as possible by eliciting the eroticism and energy of the female body and sexual relationship. There
is little to be gained by insinuating the vulva specifically when there is not a taboo, but the translator may
be able to achieve this goal through footnotes or implicit reference to a different body part. The
community checking will need to be clear and careful as metaphors around sex are often extensive and
specific.
Again, considerations of the gender of the speaker and audience will need to be carefully
considered. In some cases, the genre of this book as love poetry may allow for a higher level of tolerance
for erotic language given the intimacy of the characters and setting. Also, the book is filled with double

192

Konkel and Longman, Cornerstone: Job, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, 381–382.
Hoiland and Neeley, Translator’s Notes On Song of Songs.
194
Hoiland and Neeley, Translator’s Notes On Song of Songs.
195
Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on the Song of Songs,11.
193

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

59

entendres, so the translator does not need to be concerned with conveying the emotional energy in each
instance. The larger concern should be to allow for some ambiguity in the translation as long as doing so
heightens the intimate and erotic nature of the song.
The Word is Taboo in the Receptor Language
In cases of language communities for whom explicit reference to the vulva is taboo, the translator
should research to determine what metaphors are natural in the RL. There is a natural propensity to draw
comparisons between taboo body parts and fruits or other food; there may be a similar metaphor in the SL
that is sometimes used as a euphemism for the vulva. This would be an easy approach, as long as the RL
object still cooperates with the metaphor of the bowl. The translator could also make the double meaning
clear with either a euphemism or orthophemism, most likely in a footnote.
A dysphemism is most likely not appropriate in a song celebrating the woman’s beauty. An
orthophemism is also not appropriate for two reasons. First, it would be overstating to add to the
translation “vulva” outright when the Hebrew SL is intending to be coy in referencing the image. Second,
the word ‫ שֹ ר‬is more suggestive because it is a euphemism and translating an orthophemism would break
that playful ambiguity. The point of the euphemism in this verse is to heighten the emotions of the
audience, which could not be accomplished through orthophemism.
Additional Considerations
One unique consideration for this verse is the genre. Poetry varies drastically cross-linguistically.
The features and form may be very different from the SL. 196 The translator should consider what form is
most natural for the RL to convey love poetry and evaluate whether it can be utilized or embedded in
some way.
In comparison to the translation of the NRSV given at the beginning of this section, some other
common English Bible translations express the verse in the following ways:

196

Hoiland and Neeley, Translator’s Notes On Song of Songs.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

60

ESV: “Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine. Your belly is a heap of wheat,
encircled with lilies.”
NASB: “Your navel is like a round goblet Which never lacks mixed wine; Your belly is like a
heap of wheat Fenced about with lilies.”
NIV: “Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of
wheat encircled by lilies.”
KJV: “Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: Thy belly is like an heap of
wheat set about with lilies.”
If other translations are available, utilizing these in a community check to learn what is being understood
and what is being missed could be a valuable tool in the translation process. A reader of these English
translations may or may not understand the implied double meaning depending how familiar they are with
navel oranges or the image of a halved citrus as representative of the vulva. The translator may also
consider whether visual aids or other paratextual materials would be beneficial and appropriate for their
audience.
Some countries or communities may have very strict restrictions when it comes to discussion and
literature about sexual relationships. It will be important for the translator to be familiar with these and the
ways they could govern how a translation of the Song of Songs is shared. It may be better for the
translation to be less explicit in order to meet the standards for literature and holy books in the
community, as long as accuracy is not being sacrificed.
This verse is a good example of a linguistic taboo where there is limited certainty about the
meaning and impact of a taboo in the source text. It may be appropriate for translators to use different
approaches for the translation of linguistic taboos which are well demonstrated and those which have less
certainty. This variation in approach can allow for greater nuance in the translation based on degrees of
certainty and confidence in the analysis.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

61

Potential Translation of Song of Songs 7:2
This verse is using a conceptual metaphor that was known in the Hebrew language: COMMON BODY
PART

is TABOO BODY PART (another euphemistic example is ‫ ֶַ֫רגֶל‬foot in 1 Sam 24:3). This is not a

common conceptual metaphor in English. English is more likely to use FRUIT (or more generally
FLORA)

is TABOO BODY PART. In order to preserve the double entendre, it could be possible to translate

this verse using a fruit like cherry or grapefruit. However, this passage is part of the larger poem which
begins at the woman’s feet and moves up her body to her head. If the wasf is preserved in the rest of
the translation, this verse should maintain the progression through the body. As such, I would
recommend translating ‫ שֹר‬as “hips” rather than “navel.” Hips are more sensual to a North American
audience and, while not a double entendre, will be more likely to elicit the reference to female genitalia
for the audience. Hips are round enough to fit the first metaphor. While the second metaphor (never
lacking mixed wine) is not applicable to hips, it is also not to navel and so nothing more is lost in this
translation choice.
Your hips are a rounded bowl; / may they never lack mixed wine. / Your belly is a heap of wheat, /
encircled with lilies.

4.6 Discussion Summary
The above discussion has been summarized into the abbreviated chart below for each of the five
passages.
Example
John 11:11
After saying this, he told
them, “Our friend Lazarus
has fallen asleep, but I am
going there to awaken him.”

ST X-Phemism
Type
Euphemism

Translation Options
Taboo in RL
Not Taboo in RL
• Translate with a
• Translate as “sleep”
euphemism, but only if
and include a
sleep is a euphemism
footnote explaining
for death in the RL
the euphemism
• Translate as “sleep”
and include a footnote
explaining the
euphemism – possibly
using a RL euphemism
for death if needed

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE
Isaiah 64:6
We have all become like one
who is unclean, / and all our
righteous deeds are like a
filthy cloth. / We all fade like
a leaf, / and our iniquities,
like the wind, take us away.

Orthophemism

1 Kings 14:10
Dysphemism
Therefore I will bring evil
upon the house of Jeroboam. I
will cut off from Jeroboam
every male, both bond and
free in Israel, and will
consume the house of
Jeroboam, just as one burns
up dung until it is all gone.
Genesis 17:11
No Taboo
You shall circumcise the flesh
of your foreskins, and it shall
be a sign of the covenant
between me and you.

Song of Songs 7:2
“Your navel is a rounded
bowl; / may it never lack
mixed wine. / Your belly is a
heap of wheat, / encircled
with lilies.”

Euphemism

• Translate with
orthophemism, possibly
with footnote if the
social impact is not
similar
• Translation may need
to be strengthened or
softened depending on
the RL context
• Translate with
orthophemism or
dysphemism if
appropriate
• Translate with a similar
mild insult for men
• Translate as “men”
with a footnote
describing the ST taboo
• Translate with an
orthophemism, eliciting
as little emotional
impact as possible
• May need to navigate
existing expectations
around the practice
• Translate with a
euphemism or
metaphor to convey
both connotative &
denotative meaning
• Translate using another
sensual body part that
fits within the wasf
• Possibly include
footnote if needed

62
• Translate with an
orthophemism, but
consider if emotional
impact is accurately
conveyed
• May need footnote
to explain taboo
• Translate with a
similar mild insult
for men
• Translate as “men”
with a footnote
describing the ST
taboo

N/A (no considerations
for linguistic taboos
are needed)

• Maintain double
entendre or
sensuality in
translation if
possible
• Translate using
another sensual body
part that fits within
the wasf
• Possibly include
footnote if needed

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

63

5.0 Conclusion
The translation of linguistic taboos requires careful study of both the SL and the RL in order to
understand the usage of the taboo and the impact on the audience in each culture. Linguistic taboos can be
communicated by a range of expressions with varying levels of emotional arousal, appropriateness,
offensiveness. X-phemsim as presented by Allan and Burridge197 is a useful tool in analysis to describe
the emotional valency of an expression. The translator should seek to convey as much as possible the
emotional impact of a linguistic taboo on the audience along with the rest of the expression’s meaning in
a translation. The translation must balance the accuracy of the meaning, including the emotional impact of
a linguistic taboo, with the offense an expression causes and its capacity to distract the audience from the
intended meaning.
The translation approach will vary based on the literary context and nature of expression, and
should be made in consideration of the social context of the RL, with extensive attention to community
checking as much as is possible.
5.1 Areas for Further Study
Many of the areas identified in the “Additional Considerations” sections of Chapter 4 are topics
which warrant further discussion. A few in particular are worth highlighting.
As noted in Chapter 3, this paper was concerned primarily with written translation practices. Even
though many of the principles of the approach carry over, the application is still different when
considering audio Bibles, oral translations, signed language translations, and paratextual materials. As
valuable materials in many translation contexts throughout the world, the unique application of this topic
to each of these martials should be considered in further detail. It is important that translators working in
primarily oral or signed communication languages are just as well equipped to provide translations as
translators working in highly literate cultures.

197

Allan and Burridge, Forbidden Words.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

64

This paper is focused on linguistic taboos in the translation process but does not consider the role
or impact of non-linguistic taboos, such as behavioral taboos. These taboos will be less directly
referenced in the text than linguistic taboos; however, they are still meaningful social phenomena and will
be relevant to the translation process. Some behavioral taboos in the SL culture produce confusing
descriptions in the biblical text. Some RL cultures will have behavioral taboos that were not in the
cultures of the source text audiences and are accordingly not represented in the Bible, causing confusion
or offense. The translation of the Bible in the context of behavioral taboos is just as important as the
translation of linguistic taboos.
The scenario represented by Genesis 17:11 in the fourth example highlights the particular
challenges of translating a linguistic taboo which is taboo only in the RL, not the SL. It can be difficult to
recognize taboos in this situation when there is no indicator to the translator that a concept may be taboo.
The basic list of nearly universal taboo concepts can be helpful as long as the translator takes the time to
review the passages being translated and note any areas addressing concept taboos. Another tool which
may be useful, although initially quite labor-intensive, would be a catalogue of linguistic taboos as the
concepts come up in the Bible. This catalogue could be integrated with the translation schedule to mark
verses where the translator may need to spend more time evaluating potential linguistic taboos.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

65

Bibliography
Abdelaal, Noureldin Mohamed. “Translating Denotative Meaning in the Holy Quran: Problems and
Solutions.” Pertanika Journal Social Sciences & Humanities 27, no. 1 (2019): 13-33.
https://www.academia.edu/38872610/Translating_Denotative_Meaning_in_the_Holy_Quran_Pro
blems_and_Solutions.
Abernathy, David, Paula Bostrom, Milt Jones, James Pohlig, and Holly Zwierzynski. Old Testament
Lectionary Exegetical Summary, Is 64:5. Dallas: SIL International, 2018.
Akbari, Alireza, Masoud Shahnazari, and Neda Aghaei Khorasgani. “The Role of Five-Letter Words in
Literature: An X-Area in New Translation Studies.” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 6,
no. 1 (2015): 490-499.
https://www.academia.edu/12392704/The_Role_of_Five_Letter_Words_in_Literature_An_X_Ar
ea_in_New_Translation_Studies.
Al Ananzeh, Mohammed Saad. “Problems Encountered in Translating Conversational Implicatures in the
Holy Qurʾān into English.” International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies 3,
no. 3 (2015): 39-47.
https://www.academia.edu/72078579/Problems_Encountered_in_Translating_Conversational_Im
plicatures_in_the_Holy_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81n_into_English.
Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds.
The Greek New Testament. Fifth Revised Edition. Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 2014.
Alavi, Sayed Younes, Amin Karimnia, and Shahram Salehi Zadeh. “Translation of Taboos from English
into Persian: A Skopos-Based Study.” Elixir Linguistics & Translation 54 (2013): 12289-12292.
https://www.academia.edu/49785288/Translation_of_Taboos_from_English_into_Persian_A_Sk
opos_Based_Study.
Al-Hamad, Mohammad Qasem and Asma Mohammad Salman. “The Translatability of Euphemism in the
Holy Quran.” European Scientific Journal 9, no. 2 (2013): 190-214.
https://www.academia.edu/52003857/The_Translatability_of_Euphemism_in_the_Holy_Quran.
Allan, Keith and Kate Burridge. Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Allan, Keith, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2019.
Allan, Keith. “X-phemism and creativity.” Lexis 7 (2012). doi:10.4000/lexis.334.
Al-Sharafi, Adbul Gabbar and Said Abu Khader. “Assessing the Quality of the Translation of Sex-Related
Euphemism in the Holy Quran.” Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures 11, no. 2
(2019): 167-192.
https://www.academia.edu/70363205/Assessing_the_Quality_of_the_Translation_of_Sex_Relate
d_Euphemisms_in_the_Holy_Qur_an_A_Pragmatic_Study.
Alter, Robert. The Art of Bible Translation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

66

Anderson, Bernhard W. Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2000.
Andrews, Edna. “Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness: The Linguistic Problem of Naming.”
American Speech 71, no. 4 (1996): 389-404. doi: 10.2307/455713.
Armas, Kat. Abuelita Faith: What Women on the Margins Teach Us about Wisdom, Persistence, and
Strength. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2021.
Barnes, William H. 1-2 Kings. Edited by Philip W. Comfort. Vol. 4b. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary.
Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2012.
Barnwell, Katharine, and Hanni Kuhn. Translator’s Notes On Genesis: Notes. Edited by Linda Neeley.
Translator’s Notes. Dallas: SIL International, 2014.
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Electronic ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2003.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Vol. 36. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated,
1999.
Bello, Usman Muhammed. “A Study of Taboo and Euphemistic Expressions in Bible Translation from
English to Yoruba.” Ilorin Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture 4, (2014): 36-57.
https://www.academia.edu/33836612/A_STUDY_OF_TABOO_AND_EUPHEMISTIC_EXPRE
SSIONS_IN_BIBLE_TRANSLATION_FROM_ENGLISH_TO_YORUBA.
Bergen, Benjamin K. What the F: What Swearing Reveals About Our Language, Our Brains, and
Ourselves. New York: Basic Books, 2016.
Berman, Sidney K. “Analysing the Frames of a Bible: The Case of the Setswana Translations of the Book
of Ruth.” Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch University, 2014.
https://www.academia.edu/9149460/BiAS_16_ANALYSING_THE_FRAMES_OF_A_BIBLE_T
he_Case_of_the_Setswana_Translations_of_the_Book_of_Ruth_by_Sidney_K_Berman.
Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs
Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.
Cabal, Ted, Chad Owen Brand, E. Ray Clendenen, Paul Copan, J.P. Moreland, and Doug Powell. The
Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith. Nashville, TN:
Holman Bible Publishers, 2007.
Clark, David J. “Sex Related Imagery in the Prophets.” The Bible Translator 33, no. 4 (1982): 409-413.
Coleson, Joseph and Sarah Coleson Derck. Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther. The New Beacon Bible
Commentary. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2020.
Cruse, Alan. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011.
Culpeper, Jonathan. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2011.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

67

Dastjerdi, Hossein Vahid and Bahareh Zamani. “A Semantic Study of the Translation of Homonymous
Terms in Sacred Texts: the Qur’an in focus.” Journal of Language & Translation 10, no. 1
(2009): 45-79.
https://www.academia.edu/21275846/A_Semantic_Study_of_the_Translation_of_Homonymous_
Terms_in_Sacred_Texts_the_Quran_in_focus.
Dastjerdi, Hossein Vahid and Elaheh Jamshidian. “A Sacramental Wordplay: An Investigation of Pun
Translatability in the Two English Translations of the Quran.” Asian Social Science 7, no. 1
(2011): 133-144.
https://www.academia.edu/21275869/A_Sacramental_Wordplay_An_Investigation_of_Pun_Tran
slatability_in_the_Two_English_Translations_of_the_Quran.
Ellington, John. “Taboo Words in the Bible.” The Bible Translator 44, no. 2 (1993): 232-234.
Ellingworth, Paul and Aloo Mojola. “Translating Euphemisms in the Bible.” The Bible Translator 37, no.
1 (1986): 139-143.
Filmer, Denise Anne.” Translating Racial Slurs: A Comparative Analysis of Gran Torino Assessing
Transfer of Offensive Language between English and Italian.” Master’s thesis, Durham
University, 2011. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3337/.
Garrett, Duane. Song of Songs, Lamentations. Vol. 23B. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Word,
Incorporated, 2004.
Gao, Chunming. "A Sociolinguistic Study of English Taboo Language." Theory and Practice in
Language Studies 3, no. 12 (2013): 2310-2314,
https://twu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/sociolinguisticstudy-english-taboo-language/docview/1476261108/se-2?accountid=14411.
Gutt, Ernst-August. Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation. Dallas:
Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1992.
Grogan, Geoffrey W. “Isaiah.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Proverbs–Isaiah (Revised Edition),
edited by Tremper Longman III, Garland David E., Vol. 6. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.
Haas, Mary R. "Interlingual Word Taboos." American Anthropologist, New Series, 53, no. 3 (1951): 33844. http://www.jstor.org/stable/664425.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17. The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990.
Hjort, Minna. “Vittu and fuck – tales from a literary coexistence.” Miscommunication and Verbal
Violence, (2015): 319-330.
https://www.academia.edu/5385264/Vittu_and_fuck_tales_from_a_literary_coexistence.
Hoiland, Paul, and Linda Neeley. Translator’s Notes On Song of Songs: Notes. Translator’s Notes. SIL
International: Dallas, 2017.
Holmes, Janet. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 4th edition. London: Rutledge, 1992.
Homes, Laura Sweat and George Lyons. John 1-12. The New Beacon Bible Commentary. Kansas City:
Beacon Hill Press, 2020.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

68

Hughes, Geoffrey. An Encyclopedia of Swearing: The Social History of Oaths, Profanity, Foul Language,
and Ethnic Slurs in the English-Speaking World. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2006.
Jay, Timothy. Why We Curse: A Neuro-Psycho-Social Theory of Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2000.
Johnston, Philip S. Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Kelly, Helen Saint, John Anderson, and Joy Anderson. Translator’s Notes on John: Notes. Translator’s
Notes. Dallas: SIL International, 2020.
Khodashenas, Mohammad Reza. “Euphemistic Strategies Used by Iranian EFL Leaners: Death and Lying
in Focus.” The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances 4,
no. 1 (2016): 63-80. doi: 10.22049/jalda.2018.26169.1052
Khoshsaligheh, Masood and Saeed Ameri. “Translation of Taboos in Dubbed American Crime Movies
into Persian.” T&I Review 4 (2014): 25-50. doi: 10.22962/tnirvw.2014.4..002.
Kidner, Derek. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 1. Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries. Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967.
Konkel, August H., and Tremper Longman III. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol 6: Job,
Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2006.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1980.
Lange, John Peter, and Philip Schaff. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: John. Bellingham, WA:
Logos Bible Software, 2008.
Lange, John Peter, Philip Schaff, Carl Wilhelm Eduard Nägelsbach, Samuel T. Lowrie, and Dunlop
Moore. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Isaiah. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software,
2008.
Lange, John Peter, Philip Schaff, Karl Chr. W. F. Bähr, Edwin Harwood, and B. A. Sumner. A
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1 Kings. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.
Lange, John Peter, Philip Schaff, Tayler Lewis, and A. Gosman. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures:
Genesis. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008.
Larson, Mildred L. Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1998.
Loewen, Jacob A. “Non-Literal Meanings I: How to recognize them and use them effectively in
translation.” The Bible Translator 26, no. 2 (1975): 223-234.
Loewen, Jacob A. “Non-Literal Meanings II: What Makes them so Difficult to Translate?” The Bible
Translator 26, no. 4 (1975): 434-440.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

69

Loewen, Jacob A. “Non-Literal Meanings III: Practical Suggestions for Translators.” The Bible
Translator 27, no. 2 (1976): 201-209.
Longman, Tremper, III, and David E. Garland, eds. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Luke–Acts
(Revised Edition). Vol. 10. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007.
Longman, Tremper, III, and David E. Garland, eds. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Proverbs–Isaiah
(Revised Edition). Vol. 6. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.
Longman, Tremper. Song of Songs. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001.
Lozano, Gilberto. Isaiah 40-66. The New Beacon Bible Commentary. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press,
2020.
Mangum, Douglas Todd. “To Conceal or Reveal?: Self-Censorship and Exploitation in the Ancient Bible
Versions.” Doctoral thesis, University of the Free State, 2018.
https://www.academia.edu/37152831/TO_CONCEAL_OR_REVEAL_SELF_CENSORSHIP_A
ND_EXPLICITATION_IN_THE_ANCIENT_BIBLE_VERSIONS.
Martin, Anca-Simina. “The Un(Translatability) of Shakespeare’s Bawdy Puns: A Case Study of Romeo
and Juliet’s Early Renderings into French.” SYNERGY 14, no. 2 (2018): 6-19.
https://www.academia.edu/69944751/The_Un_Translatability_of_Shakespeares_Bawdy_Puns_A
_Case_Study_of_Romeo_and_Juliet_s_Early_Renderings_Into_French.
Mohr, Melissa. Holy Shit: A Brief History of Swearing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill, 1969.
Nida, Eugene A. Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions. Pasadena, CA: William
Carey Library, 1954.
Nida, Eugene A. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures
Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill, 1964.
Ogden, Graham S., and Jan Sterk. A Handbook on Isaiah. Edited by Paul Clarke, Schuyler Brown, Louis
Dorn, and Donald Slager. Vol. 1 & 2. United Bible Societies’ Handbooks. Reading, UK: United
Bible Societies, 2011.
Ogden, Graham S., and Lynell Zogbo. A Handbook on the Song of Songs. UBS Handbook Series. New
York: United Bible Societies, 1998.
Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39. The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986.
Park, Song-Mi Suzie. “Census and Censure: Sacred Threshing Floors and Counting Taboos in 2 Samuel
24.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 35 (2013): 21-41. doi: 10:1163/18712207-12341245.
Patterson, Richard D., and Hermann J. Austel. “1, 2 Kings.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: 1
Samuel–2 Kings (Revised Edition), edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, Vol. 3.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

70

Pedraza, Andrea Pizarro. Linguistic Taboo Revisited: Novel Insight from Cogitative Perspectives. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2019.
Piccin, Michela. “Mortality and Fame in Akkadian Texts.” Journal of Ancient Civilizations 33, no. 1
(2018): 1-25.
https://www.academia.edu/35389870/Mortality_and_Fame_in_Akkadian_Texts_JAC_33_1_201
8_pp_1_25.
Rababah, Hussein A. “The Translatability and Use of X-Phemism Expressions (X-phemization):
Euphemisms, Dysphemisms and Orthophemisms) in the Medical Discourse.” Studies in
Literature and Language 9, no. 3 (2014): 1-12. doi: 10.3968/6042.
Reyburn, William David, and Euan McG. Fry. A Handbook on Genesis. UBS Handbook Series. New
York: United Bible Societies, 1998.
Ross, Allen, and John N. Oswalt. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Genesis, Exodus. Vol. 1. Carol
Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008.
Ross, Barry L. Isaiah 1-39. The New Beacon Bible Commentary. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2016.
Sailhamer, John H. “Genesis.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis–Leviticus (Revised
Edition), edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2008.
Shields, Martin A. “Death.” Edited by John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel
Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, and
Wendy Widder. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.
Silva, Moisés, and Merrill Chapin Tenney. The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, D-G. Grand
Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corporation, 2009.
Slager, Donald. “Preface.” In A Handbook on 1 & 2 Kings, edited by Paul Clarke, Schuyler Brown, Louis
Dorn, and Donald Slager, Vol. 1–2. United Bible Societies’ Handbooks. New York: United Bible
Societies, 2008.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cornwall: Blackwell
Publishing, 1986.
Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament).
Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.
The Translator’s Reference Translation of John: Notes. Dallas: SIL International, 2003.
Tsai, Lynn I. L. “The Chinese Translation of Emotion Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible: A Cognitive
Approach to Translation Criticism.” Exploring the Chinese Translation Strategies of Hebrew
Metaphors in the Old Testament (2013): 1-21.
https://www.academia.edu/3852119/The_Chinese_Translation_of_Emotion_Metaphors_in_the_
Hebrew_Bible_A_Cognitive_Approach_to_Translation_Criticism.
Waard, Jan de. “Biblical Metaphors and Their Translation.” The Bible Translator 25, no. 1 (1974): 107116.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

71

Waard, Jan de. “Do you Use ‘Clean Language’?: Old Testament Euphemisms and Their Translation.” The
Bible Translator 22, no. 3 (1971): 107-115.
Walker, Larry L., Elmer A. Martens. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Isaiah, Jeremiah, &
Lamentations. Vol. 8. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005.
Warren-Rothlin, Andy. “Euphemisms and Bible Translations.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics vol. 1, edited by Geoffrey Khan, 865-869. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 34–66. Revised Edition. Vol. 25. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson, Inc, 2005.
Wardhaugh, Ronald. “Taboo and Euphemism.” In An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 6th ed. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 16–50. Vol. 2. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated,
1994.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

72

Appendix A:
Translation of Linguistic Taboos in the Bible: Guiding Questions
Exegesis
Starting out with a basic understanding of the literary context of the source text will provide important
background for analyzing the linguistic taboo in the verse.
In addition to the text, resources may include: Bible commentaries and encyclopedias.
Where does the passage fall in the larger biblical narrative? (What’s going on with Israel?)
No part of the Bible stands on its own, all books and passages are part of the metanarrative of the people
of God’s history and calling. Understanding the metanarrative helps to place the motivations of the
authors, and time period and large themes for the passage.
Who is the author of the passage?
Often this will be difficult to determine, contested, or even unknown. If it is known, or if certain
characteristics are known (age, profession, social status, etc.), this information may provide insight into
how and why certain expresions are used.
When was the text written?
Similar to authorship, the dating of a book (primarily the date it was written or compiled, but also the date
of the events) may be contested or difficult to determine. Because language changes over time (and taboo
words are especially volatile), the date of the text can help to understand how a linguistic taboo was used
and what its intended impact on the audience would have been.
Who was the intended audience (of the book)?
The demographic of the intended audience can reveal motivations for writing and how the text may have
been received.
What is the literary genre?
Literary genre provides insight into the way information is communicated. For example, historical
narratives will prioritize relaying events, while biographies will prioritize characterization of the subject.
Also, whether a text is written in poetry or prose (or a combination of both) will provide background for
writing style and literary features.
Where does the verse fall in the outline of the passage?
The outline of a passage can indicate themes and tones for the text. Also, determining the boundaries of a
literary section can provide insight for lexical choices.
What kinds of literary features are being employed?
Literary features can contribute to the important themes and tone of a passage, as well as indicate the
emphasis of a passage. They can provide clues as to the genre of a passage. Additionally, they may
require certain lexical choices that will be important in the analysis of the linguistic taboo.
What are the important themes?
The themes of a book or passage provides insight into the tone of a passage and what verse or words are
being emphasized.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

73

What is the tone of the passage?
The tone of a passage provides insight into what language is used and the emotions being conveyed.
While the words in a passage set the tone of the passage, the translator can also use this literary
information to assist in determining the connotation of an expression.
Source Language Sociolinguistic Analysis
As a sociolinguistic issue, understanding and translating linguistic taboos relies extensively on
understanding the sociolinguistic context where a taboo is being used.
In addition to the text, resources may include: Bible commentaries, encyclopedias, lexicons.
Who is speaking? What capacity do they hold in society? (gender, leadership, age, etc.)
Some sociolinguistic taboos are governed by the demographic information of the speaker. Things like
gender, status, and age can influence motivations and permissibility of language.
Who is being spoken to?
Likewise some linguistic taboos are governed by the demographics of the audience for the same reasons
listed above.
Does the literary audience react to the expression? If so, how? (shock, anger, disgust, etc.)
In narrative settings, the reactions of the literary audience can provide clues as to the impact of a
linguistic taboo on the audience of the source text.
What expression is being used? What does it mean?
This is the opportunity to identify the expression in the source language text and use dictionaries or
lexicons to determine its primary denotative meaning. There may also be notes about secondary or
connotative meanings given in these resources.
How frequently is it used in the Bible? Where? Is it used elsewhere by the same author in a similar
context / with a similar function?
The frequency of an expression’s usage will likely be related to the degree of certainty held for its
meaning. In the cases of expressions occurring only once or twice, it may be necessary to seek out
extrabiblical material or treat the translation effort more conservatively in recognition that the meaning is
uncertain. The books an expression occurs in may indicate limitations on its use in certain genres or
during certain time periods. Most expressions will have more than one sense, and patterns may be
identified for when and where which senses are used. Also, occurrence across books by certain authors
(as much as the author is known) can help specify the meaning for a particular author.
Does its usage tell us anything about taboos around the expression?
The valency of the expression (whether it is expressed with euphemism or dysphemism) and literary
context can offer insight into the attitudes the audience might hold towards the taboo.
What is its etymology?
The translator should not put too much stock in the etymology of an expression – the meaning and usage
at the time the text was written is of more importance. However, the origins and history of an expression
could provide insight into cultural attitudes.
What are other expressions that can express this meaning?
Some expressions may communicate the same or similar meanings which can provide insight into the
author’s lexical choices.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

74

Are there any reasons you can think of as to why the author may have chosen to use this expression
instead of the other expressions?
This answer to this question will be somewhat speculative and should be treated cautiously. However, it
is a useful exercise to consider the range of communicative challenges the author faced, as it provides a
starting point for the translator when attempting to communicate the same points.
Linguistic Taboo Analysis
In order to know how to translate a linguistic taboo it is necessary to understand what is meant in the
Source Language text and what it means in the Receptor Language.
In addition to the text, resources may include: Bible commentaries, encyclopedias, lexicons, dictionaries,
anthropologies, community input.
Is it taboo in the SL?
The translator should consider the common cross-cultural concept taboos. For example, if the concept of
SEX is taboo in the source language culture, then it is likely that the expression is a linguistic taboo. If it
is, the translator will need to analyze the expression as it occurs in the source language text. It is it not, the
translator should consider whether any special consideration would have been given to the expression by
the audience in the source language, and then determine whether the concept is taboo in the receptor
language. (If taboo in neither, this analysis is likely not needed. If taboo in one and not the other, this
analysis is still needed.)
How does the SL express the linguistic taboo? (Is it expressed with a euphemism, orthophemism, or
dysphemism?)
These three categories provide a starting point for determining the likely emotional impact on the
audience to the expression, but the categories are not rigid and the translator will need to articulate the
extent of emotional impact for the expression. The goal is to transfer that impact from the source language
to the receptor language in the translation.
Is it taboo in the RL?
Similarly, the translator should consider the culturally taboo concepts in the receptor language culture to
determine if the expression is a linguistic taboo. If it is not taboo, the translator will need to be cautious to
convey the emotional value of the source language text taboo in the translation to the receptor language.
What options does the RL have for expressing the taboo? (euphemism, orthophemism, dysphemism)
If the concept is taboo, the translator will need to evaluate all options for expressing the taboo in the
receptor language. This should include all possible expressions and an evaluation of the level of offense
each communicates, then narrow down the list of expressions as each is evaluated for the translation. This
step should also take into account the receptor language’s ability to innovate expressions dealing with the
concept.
Receptor Language Sociolinguistic Analysis
As with the source language text, understanding the sociolinguistic context where a taboo is being used is
critical to selecting the best expression for a translation.
In addition to the text, resources may include: dictionaries, anthropologies, other forms of media, prior
Bible translations, community input.
Who is allowed to use the linguistic taboo? In which circumstances?
As noted above, some linguistic taboos apply only to (or more strongly to) certain segments of a
population. Its usage will provide insight into the strength of the taboo as well as the permissibility of its
usage within the literary context.

TRANSLATING LINGUISTIC TABOOS IN THE BIBLE

75

Is the taboo censored by the government or other institutions of power in the context in which the
translation will be engaged?
Publishing a translation may be impeded if the government or other authorities have prohibitions against
the use of certain linguistic taboos. Additionally, some social expectations around linguistic taboos are
influenced by the expectations of authorities in the community.
Are the expressions being considered used in other publications read or listened to in the
community?
Whether the expressions being considered are being used in other media can provide insight into whether
an expression will be appropriate to be published in a translation. There may still be discrepancies due to
the authority afforded to a Bible translation versus another form of secular media.
Frequency of use in newspapers, magazines, radio programs, TV and movies, etc.
The frequency of use can indicate the appropriateness of an expression, as well as the range of its
meaning. If an expression is used more in certain types of media than others, the translator should
consider whether its use in the translation fits into the pattern of use.
How have other translations expressed the taboo?
As with any other translation process, evaluating translations which have already been completed in the
receptor language or a language of wider communication can provide valuable information and context.
How have readers responded to previous expressions of the taboo in those translations (either
published Bibles or in sermons/paratextual materials)?
The community’s response to a specific linguistic taboo in other biblical materials can reveal important
information about the appropriateness and naturalness of a translation choice. The translator can then
decide whether to maintain the previous translation or to test another expression.