Abstract
In The Sexual Politics of Meat, Carol Adams develops a feminist-vegetarian theory of the absent referent. She argues that cultural imagery and semantics function to make moral consideration of the animal absent from the act of eating meat. For instance, the use of the word “meat” for nonhuman animals and “flesh” for humans helps humans deny that meat is the flesh of another sentient being that can suffer like humans and wants to live. When translators of the Hebrew Bible use “ivory” for Hebrew shen in Ps 45.8(9) rather than “teeth,” this makes the elephants who provided their tusks the absent referent and makes human identification with the suffering of those elephants less likely. This paper argues that translators need to understand absent referents in English in order to translate the book of Psalms adequately and ecologically.
In the introduction to his Earth Bible commentary on Genesis, Norman Habel (2011, 11) says that “the most obvious dimension” of identifying with Earth “is to identify with nonhuman figures in the narrative, empathising with their roles, character and treatment, and discerning their voices.” As obvious as this may seem, my experience is that our English language and culture often make us oblivious to the presence of nonhuman figures in the Bible, even our closest kin, other mammals. Language and culture are intertwined and the long history of environmental exploitation in English-speaking cultures has left an imprint on the English language that poses challenges for the translation of ancient Hebrew. One example of this is what Carol Adams (1993) calls the “absent referent.” In this paper, I will argue that it is necessary to be aware of the way the absent referent functions in order to provide translations and interpretations that encourage compassion for our Earth kin.
This paper will focus on mammals, on the assumption that our closest relatives are the ones that would be the place to start moving away from anthropocentrism and listening to and identifying with Earth. I primarily use examples from the Psalms that I came across while writing an Earth Bible commentary on Book Two of the Psalms (Walker-Jones 2019).
Carol Adams’s book is concerned with the intersection of feminism with animal rights, yet her analysis of animals as absent referents is a useful critical insight for eco-criticism. Animal rights activists are particularly concerned with the suffering caused by industrial agriculture and factory farming. Ecological activists identify industrial agriculture and factory farming as major contributors to ground-water pollution and climate change. While eco-critics and animal studies scholars come from different perspectives, theory and practice often intersect. Many eco-critics are now including animal studies in their analysis (Garrard 2012, 146–80). Both have reasons to be opposed to factory farming and Carol Adams’s concept of the absent referent is useful in understanding the English cognitive linguistic mechanisms that pose challenges for an ecological translation because they deny the value and significance of Earth kin.
Adams (1993, 40) argues that there are “three ways by which animals become absent referents.” First, they are absent literally when they are eaten as food, because they are dead. Second, they are absent by definition, or I would say linguistically, when we use words like meat rather than flesh to refer to the dead body of an animal (Adams 1993, 41). As Adams says, After being butchered, fragmented body parts must be renamed to obscure the fact that these were once animals. After death, cows become roast beef, steak, hamburger; pigs become pork, bacon, sausage. Since objects are possessions they cannot have possessions; thus we say “leg of lamb” not a “lamb’s leg.” (1993, 47–48)
Third, nonhuman animals are absent when they become a metaphor for something else (1993, 42), most often in the Bible as a metaphor for humans. Adams thus includes several different phenomena under the rubric “absent referent.” This third type is clearly different from the previous types, because the name of the animal is present. But examples of this third type will be included in the discussion on the basis that the animal is “absent” in the sense that, despite the presence of their name, they are only considered for what they say about humans, not as subjects themselves, and this more subtle type of absent referent works together with the more obvious types to support anthropocentrism and avoid consideration of the lives of other species in their own right.
Nonhuman animals are absent referents in the first sense in the book of Psalms. The psalms were used in temple rituals that revolved around animal sacrifice. This is evident in references to sacrifice and sacrificial animals in the psalms. Thus, nonhuman animals are literally absent in the psalms and Israelite religion because the sacrificial animals are dead (or soon to be dead) animals.
Palaces of teeth
Nonhuman animals are also absent in the second definitional or linguistic sense of absent referent. In Ps 45, NRSV translates שֵׁן הֵיכְלֵי as “palaces of ivory” (v. 9[8]). The Hebrew word שֵׁן, however, is most often used in the Bible for “tooth” or “teeth.” The Hebrew could more literally be translated “palaces of teeth” or “palaces of tusks” (Walker-Jones 2019, 53–54). The English word “ivory” conceals the presence of referents who were killed for their tusks. How many tusks would be needed for a palace? How many elephants would be killed to make a “tusk palace”? One assumes many! Syrian elephants were extinct by 100 B.C.E. and already seem to have been rare in earlier biblical times as zooarchaeological finds indicate that “tusks” were being imported from Africa (Cansdale 1970, 102–3). A modern reader thinks of the killing of elephants for their tusks by poachers. A recent census of elephants in Africa found their number had declined thirty percent due to poaching (www.greatelephantcensus.com). While their numbers have increased in some areas of Africa, they are extinct or threatened in many other areas of Africa and Asia.
Psalm 45 is a royal wedding psalm, an unusual genre in the Psalter, that is clearly influenced by royal ideology. The Bible often mentions שֵׁן “tusks” in the context of wealth from international commerce and the grandeur of the monarchy. First Kings 10.18 (= 2 Chr 9.17) says Solomon made a throne of “tusks.” Ahab built a “tusk house,” according to 1 Kgs 22.39. Ezekiel 27.6 says the decks of the Tyrian ship of state were inlaid with tusks. Traders from the Greek island of Rhodes brought Tyre ebony and tusks (Ezek 27.15). Amos says, “the houses of tusks shall perish” (3.15), and criticizes those who “lie on beds of tusks” and are oblivious to the plight of the poor (6.4).
The interrelationship of the exploitation of Earth kin, elephants, with the exploitation of women is evident in Ps 45 (Walker-Jones 2019, 54). Palaces of tusks are mentioned in the last line of v. 9, and the first line of the next verse could be translated, “daughters of kings are among your valuables” (10a[9a]). These daughters of kings may have been married by the king to cement political alliances with neighboring city states and empires. “Valuables” indicates treasured possessions, but possessions nonetheless. Women are objectified as possessions of the king. The following verses tell the new queen to forget her people (11[10]). The king will desire her beauty and she should bow down to him (12[11]). Wealthy people will seek her favor and she will be dressed in expensive clothes (13-14[12-13]). By the end of the psalm (17-18[16-17]), the focus has shifted to the fame of the king and his sons! This is the patriarchal model of a woman as an object valued for her beauty and ability to provide sons for a man (Walker-Jones 2019, 54). An ecological translator, therefore, needs to be attentive to issues of gender as they are often interrelated with ecological issues.
Living things or living beings
Even when nonhuman animals are present in the text, translations may treat them as objects, rather than as subjects. They are present in the text, but absent as subjects.
Thus, several English translations of Ps 104.25 translate חַיּוֹת as “living things” (NRSV, NIV, NJPS). The choice of “things” treats other species as objects, rather than treating them as subjects, which could be done by choosing a translation like “creatures,” or even better, “beings.” The word חַיּוֹת is most often used for nonhuman animals, but the singular form is used for humans in places like Ps 74.19. The word is used twice in this verse, once for wild animals and once for poor and oppressed humans. And the word is from the common root for “life” used elsewhere for humans. The Hebrew Bible clearly understands humans and other animals as sharing the same life. Even if the plural form in Ps 104.25 refers mostly to nonhuman animals, they could be referred to in English translations as “beings” rather than as “things.”
Flesh or meat
A more complicated and perhaps interesting example of the second type of semantic absent referent is the translation of the Hebrew word בָּשָׂר as either “flesh” or “meat.” As previously mentioned, Adams says English makes a distinction between human flesh and animal meat (Adams 1993, 41). In English, this creates cognitive distance between a person and the dead animal that the person is eating, and avoids reflection on the ethical implications of eating another living being. This distinction is not always maintained in English, as several major English dictionaries give definitions of “flesh” that understand it as referring to both humans and nonhuman animals and some even give examples of its use with nonhuman animals. Nevertheless, the distinction between animal meat and human flesh does occur frequently enough to provide general support for Adams’s point.
This English distinction between human flesh and animal meat creates complications for translations into English of the Hebrew word בָּשָׂר. English versions of the Psalms consistently translate בָּשָׂר as “flesh” for either humans or nonhuman animals. Even when the translation “meat” would be expected, many English versions have “flesh.” The CEB of Ps 50.13 has “Do I eat bull’s meat?” But many others, like NRSV, have “flesh of bulls.” As far as I can tell, neither “flesh of bulls” nor “bull’s meat” is idiomatic in English. The idiomatic expression for either in English would be “beef.” There may be poetic considerations here as “flesh of bulls” is parallel to “blood of goats.” English recognizes that other mammals have blood just as humans do, though this may be because the Judeo-Christian tradition avoids drinking blood and so does not have the same need for an absent referent. The translation might be influenced by the point being made in the psalm. While most biblical scholars recognize that this verse is not a criticism of sacrifice, a translation that brings out the horror of sacrifice may suit the context. I would suggest that another possibility is that translators are being influenced by the Hebrew they are translating, resulting in an expression that is not idiomatic English, and suggests greater identification with other species than one normally gets in English.
There are some passages in the Psalms where the primary reference is to humans. In Ps 56.5(4), NRSV translates, “what can flesh do to me.” That English speakers would understand this as referring to humans is evident by the NIV and NJPS translation “mortals.” The refrain in 56.12(11) has אָדָם, so the primary reference is to humans. Similarly, Ps 78.9 refers to God being compassionate and remembering that the people of Israel were “flesh.” In this context, flesh refers to human mortality. The translation “flesh” might seem justified in these passages because the primary reference is to humans.
But the translation “flesh” may obscure a human relationship with nonhuman animals, even in these cases where the primary reference in Hebrew is to humans, because a strong case can be made based on occurrences elsewhere in the Psalms that the word refers to all animals. The NRSV of Ps 145.21b has “All flesh will bless [God’s] holy name,” but NJPS’s “all creatures” is better because the context in this psalm is not anthropocentric.
The LORD is good to all, divine compassion is over all that God made. All your works shall give thanks to you, O LORD, And all your faithful ones bless you. (vv. 9-10) The eyes of all wait hopefully for you, And you give them their food in time, Opening your hand, satisfying every living being. (vv. 15-16)
1
The psalm seems to be speaking of God’s care for all living beings, so a translation “flesh,” which might limit the reference to humans, obscures the psalm’s inclusion of Earth kin.
Similarly, Ps 136.25 says God “gives food to all בָּשָׂר.” This psalm praises God’s “steadfast love” in creation and in the exodus. While nonhuman animals are not otherwise mentioned in Ps 136, God feeds other species elsewhere in the Psalms. Psalm 104.21 reads, “The young lions roar for prey, and seek their food from God.” Thus, the use of this Hebrew word and examples of God feeding all creatures elsewhere in the Psalms would allow the connotation that God feeds all species. NIV’s translation “every creature” is thus preferable to NRSV and NJPS’s “all flesh.”
Likewise, the NRSV translation of Ps 65.3 has “all flesh shall come to you.” That some English speakers would read this as referring exclusively to humans is evident in the NIV translation “all people” and the NJPS translation “all mankind,” which manages to be both anthropocentric and sexist. Yet a case could be made that בָּשָׂר refers to human and nonhuman animals in the context of Ps 65 and the Psalms generally. In Ps 65, other parts of creation are active agents praising God. Verse 14(13) reads, “The meadows put on flocks, the valleys cover themselves with grain, they shout for joy, even sing.” In the context of the book as a whole, all creation is in relationship with God and praises God. Psalm 148.10 calls on “the living being (הַחַיָּה) and every domestic beast, creeping beings and winged birds” to praise God. The English translation “flesh,” therefore, conceals a relationship with other parts of creation, including other mammals, that would be a possible association for an ancient reader of the Hebrew word בָּשָׂר. In conclusion, English translators influenced by Hebrew usage may understand “flesh” as referring not just to humans, but to all creatures, but English readers unfamiliar with Hebrew usage may interpret the translation in terms of the meat–flesh distinction noted by Adams as referring only to humans and miss the reference to the shared embodiment of humans and other animals present in the Hebrew.
Embodiment
The embodiment humans share with nonhuman animals has important implications for ecological ethics. Richard Twine (2001, 51) argues that “the humility of acknowledging both vulnerability and agency in relation to all human embodiment undermines the socio-historical Western moral imperative to deny and control our bodies” that he understands as interrelated with environmental exploitation. Similarly, Graham Huggan and Helen Tiffin (2010, 179–81) identify the problem of how to develop better ways of relating to other species. They note that both Derrida in his The Animal That Therefore I Am (2009) and Coetzee in The Lives of Animals (1999) recognize that the deeper problem than that of the human eating of other animals is the problem of the carnivorous nature of human linguistic cognition. The absent referent would be one element of this carnivorous linguistic cognition but also the defining of what it means to be human over against animals that is ensconced in human language and therefore human cognition. They note that Coetzee suggests that a way to get around this “linguistic-cognitive carnivorousness” might be “shared embodiedness” (Huggan and Tiffin 2010, 181).
This shared embodiedness is present not only in the Hebrew word בָּשָׂר that I have been discussing, but also in several passages in the Psalter. One example would be Ps 49. The psalm has what appears to be a repeated refrain, though the wording is slightly different in the second occurrence of the refrain: But a human cannot abide in wealth. They are like cattle that perish. (v. 13[12]) A human has wealth but does not understand. They are like cattle that perish. (v. 21[20])
In between these two verses emphasizing that humans and cattle alike perish is another verse that says, Like a flock for Sheol they are appointed, with death as their shepherd they go down. (v. 15a[14a])
In a modern context where consumer capitalism is a major driver of climate change, the fact that the psalm is a critique of the wealthy may be significant. This psalm, like the word בָּשָׂר, emphasizes the wisdom of recognizing the shared embodiment and thus mortality of humans and other animals as essential to resisting Western exploitation of Earth.
Background or metaphors
The third form of absent referent is also present in the Psalter. References to other species are assumed by commentators to be background to the human story, or mere metaphors for humans. As background they are seldom considered worthy of comment, or as metaphors for humans, mention of them is a brief stop on the road to talking about humans. Ivory also provides an example of the third type of absent referent, the use of Earth kin as metaphors or similes for humans. Song of Songs says the stomach of the bridegroom is “a plate of tusks” (5.14) and his beloved’s neck is “like a tower of tusks” (7.5[4]). If I translate that the stomach of the bridegroom is “a plate of teeth” or his beloved’s neck is “like a tower of teeth” this would be a little shocking and horrifying in English. And maybe rightly so.
Another example of the third form of absent referent that has implications for translation is Ps 42.2(1): As a doe groans for streams of water, thus my being groans for you, O God.
The doe is a simile for the psalmist, so commentators and readers generally take this to be about humans and ignore the doe. The doe is the absent referent, a mere simile for the psalmist. The nonhuman animal and the voice of the nonhuman animal are ignored.
The introduction to the principles of the Earth Bible series discusses the dualisms that legitimate the oppression of women and the environment (Habel 2000, 40–41). The human–animal and spiritual–material binaries influence translation and interpretation of this verse. The first half of the verse about a deer longing for water is located on the animal and material side of these binaries and the second half of the verse that discusses human longing for God is considered the important subject of the verse.
Someone might argue the deer is not important to consider, because it is just a simile for a human seeking God. But I suspect that if the verse said: “Like a poor person longs for water,” then commentators probably would consider it important to discuss poor people and their longing for water. The argument that the animal is not important because it is in a simile is evidence of the assumed human versus animal binary and the anthropocentrism it supports.
This affects interpretation of the verse and perhaps even the translation. The textual issue that concerns the doe may seem unimportant. The Hebrew noun is masculine, but the verb is feminine. It seems likely that a taw has dropped out by haplography, so that the reference is to a doe. A number of translations choose the English word “deer,” which could refer to either a male or female of the species. Do they consider the textual problem and the gender of the deer insignificant because they think the verse is really about humans?
The verse uses the same Hebrew verb תַּעֲרֹג in both cola. The verbs indicate a close association of the psalmist with the doe. Most English translations reflect this by using the same verb twice. Some translations understand the verb as relating to an internal state and translate “longs” (NRSV) or “craves” (CEB). Other translations take it as a vocalization and translate “pants” (KJV) or “cries” (NJPS). No one that I know of asks about the internal state of the deer or the vocalizations of deer to address the textual issue.
Deer do have a wide range of vocalizations. Deer hunters imitate the bleats of does and the growls and grunts of bucks during the rutting season. Atkeson, Marchinton, and Miller (1988, 197), in their study of deer vocalizations, discuss twelve different sounds, including a maternal grunt and a contact call. The maternal grunt is given as a doe approaches a bedded fawn and usually results in the fawn rising and approaching the doe. They report a “contact call” that is used when a deer is separated from the herd. They describe it as a “voiced grunt” that they only heard females make (199).
Mitchell Dahood (1966, 255–56) argues that תַּעֲרֹג (Ps 42.2[1]) indicates a vocalization and should be translated “cry.” He cites Ehrlich (1905, 95) and Bewer (1912, 92). The only other place this verb occurs in the Hebrew Bible is in Joel 1.20. The context is similar to Ps 42.2. The animals are crying because of brush fires and dried up watercourses. That the verb refers to a vocalization is implied because it is parallel to “To you, I cry [אֶקְרָא], O LORD” in the previous verse (1.19). Note that the sounds of resh and gimmel of the Hebrew verb תַּעֲרֹג are the same consonant sounds as the g and r in the English word “grunt,” used to describe some deer calls. I suspect that the Hebrew verb is an example of onomatopoeia: the verb imitates the sound of the doe’s call. Thus, I would translate, “As a doe groans for streams of water.”
If we take the doe as seriously as humans, I would suggest that we would want to study the history of the relationship of humans to deer and the history of deer themselves, and I do a little of that in my Earth Bible commentary (Walker-Jones 2019, 29–31).
The NRSV of the second half of Ps 42.2 says, “so my soul longs for you, O God.” Yet the word נֶפֶשׁ in Hebrew does not refer to a disembodied soul. “Life” or “being” is a better translation. The NRSV translation heightens a spiritual–material dualism and this also has implications for interpretation. If, as a reader, I do not assume a spiritual–material binary, then I might recognize that the longing for water is spiritual, because God is the source of water. If I do not read a spiritual–material binary in the passage, I can recognize that humans need water and a doe can have a relationship with God.
Conclusion
This paper has attempted to show that Carol Adams’s concept of the “absent referent” is useful for analyzing the way the English language may impose binaries on the text and thus obscure human identification with other species and their shared mortality and embodiment. Thus, nonhuman animals are absent referents when they are dead, as is the case with sacrificial animals. Nonhuman animals are absent referents when language erases their presence, as in translating שֵׁן as “ivory” rather than as “tusk” (Ps 45.8[9]); or treats them as objects rather than subjects, as when חַיּוֹת is translated “living things” rather than as “living beings” (Ps 104.25); or excludes them from a common standing with humans, as when translating בָּשָׂר as “flesh” where this might limit the reference to humans and miss the allusion to the shared embodiment of humans and other animals. Nonhuman animals are absent referents when commentators and translators assume they are background or mere metaphors for humans as in the case of the doe groaning for water (Ps 42.1[2]). These examples in Psalms raise the question of how many more cases there are in the Hebrew Bible of absent referents and the imposition of English binaries on the biblical text. Both the ancient languages and modern languages other than English may have their home in cultures with better relations with Earth and Earth kin. 2
Footnotes
Notes
Abbreviations
CEB Common English Bible (2011)
NIV New International Version (2011)
NJPS New Jewish Publication Society Version (Tanakh; 1985)
NRSV New Revised Standard Version (1989)