Abstract
This paper outlines an approach for translating sexual references in the Bible in a culture that considers the subject taboo in public discussions. Such is the case in most Pacific Island cultures, especially in the Tongan culture. We will look at various examples of sex-related language, and conceptual metaphors in particular. For this, a method is proposed for understanding metaphorical expressions based on Lakoff and Johnson's cognitive linguistic view of metaphor. Then, this method is applied to biblical references to sex in the biblical storyline, focusing especially on the Old Testament. Finally, suggestions are offered for how best to translate sexual terms in Tongan Bible translation.
Introduction
The lexicon of sex is potent, and its mention tends to evoke all kinds of associations from our personal experience (cf. Stone 1996, 9). This paper probes the question of how sex is metaphorically described in the biblical storyline, and seeks to find a way in which sexual references can be appropriately translated in cultures where speaking about sex is taboo.
Old Testament research on metaphor belongs to two broad categories. Some studies focus on specific metaphors in individual books (e.g., Nielsen 1989; Galambush 1992). Other studies trace one type of metaphor throughout the Bible (e.g., Brettler 1989). The present exercise belongs to the second of these categories.
In studies focusing specifically on sex in the Bible, the general scholarly trend observes no evidence there of a unified attitude towards sex. As Stone affirms, We have relatively little evidence about the range of attitudes ancient Israel might have held concerning sexual matters. Moreover, narrative references to sexual activity seldom, if ever, seem to be made because of an interest in sexual issues per se but arise instead in connection with other matters. Consequently, these narratives usually contain little if any descriptive detail or overt evaluative discourse about sex. (Stone 1996, 14)
1
The traditional understanding of metaphor
Traditionally, metaphor has been described as “an anomaly, an unusual, or deviant way of using language” (Goatly 1997, 1). Metaphor highlights the question of the function of language. Is language grounded in nature or in linguistic convention? The naturalist view insists that language is considered appropriate to what it signifies in the world. For example, a “hoot” appropriately represents the cry of the owl.
However, with metaphor this strict relation between a word and what it signifies does not hold. In effect, metaphors confirm that expressions can refer to more than one thing (Soskice 1985, 1–2). The Greek term metaphora combines meta (“over”) and phorein (“to carry”). Traditionally, metaphors involve some transference of the original conventional meaning of a word to a secondary situation. For example, the “neck” of a bottle is secondary, derived through analogy to the “neck” of a person (Soskice 1985, 1). Every approximation of the meaning and function of a metaphor implies some form of transference or “mapping” from one concept to another (Haser 2005, 14). 2
Defining metaphor
Thus far, no consensus regarding a general definition of metaphor has emerged. Does a metaphor signify the product or the process of something? Is a metaphor a symbolic picture substituted for a literal expression? These are some of the critical questions raised in defining metaphor. Most practitioners describe metaphor with specific examples but are extremely careful not to apply their definition to types of metaphorical expression that do not fit their proposed model (White 1996, 57). In that respect, a working definition of metaphor is the best one can offer (Soskice 1985, 15). 3
Metaphors We Live By (Lakoff and Johnson 1980)
The search for a working definition brings us to Lakoff and Johnson's understanding of metaphor. Their view of metaphor is commonly known as conceptual metaphor theory and is considered “one of the most influential theories of metaphor” (Kӧvecses 2011, 23). 4 The merit of their view is the attention it gives to the pervasive influence of metaphorical expressions in everyday language and experience. Contrary to the idea that metaphor is primarily linguistic (e.g., Soskice 1985), Lakoff and Johnson insist that “metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action” (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 3). To them, “the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” (5). The human conceptual system in general, according to Lakoff and Johnson, is metaphorically structured. Hence, the title of their book, Metaphors We Live By (Steen 1994, 4). 5
They identify three types of metaphor: namely, orientational, ontological, and structural metaphors. The orientational metaphor “organizes a whole system of concepts with respect to one another,” and is mostly evident in spatial orientations such as “happiness is UP” and “sadness is DOWN” (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 15). Ontological metaphors provide ways of viewing events, activities, emotions, ideas, and so forth, as “entities and substances” (26). So when we say, “Inflation is lowering our standard of living,” “inflation” is seen as an entity, that is, we can “refer to it, quantify it, identify a particular aspect of it, see it as a cause, act with respect to it” (27). In the sentence, “My mind is not operating today,” “mind” is identified with a MACHINE metaphor (29). Structural metaphors are cases where “one concept is metaphorically structured in terms of another” (15). Examples are ARGUMENT IS WAR and TIME IS MONEY (8). 6
In all categories, there is a source domain and a target domain. A domain is the sum of all that one knows about an area of experience (Haser 2005, 28). According to Lakoff and Johnson, metaphors “allow us to understand one domain of experience in terms of another” (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 117). The source is the domain of experience from which we draw in order to understand the target domain. For example, in ARGUMENT IS WAR, WAR is the source domain from which we draw to understand the target domain ARGUMENT. That is, a metaphor is not constituted by any particular word or expression but is the “mapping across conceptual domains” (Lakoff 1993, 203). 7 In mapping across conceptual domains, 8 Lakoff explains that “the conceptual structure of the source domain is preserved in ways consistent with the essential structure of the target domain” (cited in Haser 2005, 215).
According to Lakoff, making sense of the source and target domains of a metaphor is accomplished by “framing.” 9 To define “framing,” he draws on the insights of the sociologist Erving Goffman and the cognitive linguist Charles J. Fillmore.
The Lakoff–Johnson–Goffman–Fillmore approach to mapping metaphors
In his book Frame Analysis (1974), Goffman observes that when a person is faced with a given situation and asks, “What is it that is going on here?,” the answer to this question is arrived at by framing. What Goffman means is that the answer is bound to what he calls “principles of organisation which govern events” (10–11). 10 In other words, we speak and understand things in terms of different scenarios (24), for example, those of a game or a joke (26).
While Goffman's view of framing applies basically to events, Fillmore observes the same pattern in the linguistic properties of individual words. He perceives that a word functions by evoking a frame constituted of scenarios that are “conventional or familiar routines or behavior sequences.” We analyze and distinguish significant events by seeing smaller ones as part of them (Fillmore 2003, 207). Framing lexical items helps us understand what they signify (212). 11 For example, the term “write” evokes a frame comprising the individual that does the writing, the writing instrument, the writing surface, and, ultimately, the product of the activity of writing. In effect, every word, according to Fillmore, activates such a frame, constituted of the scenarios by which we organize reality in our experience (Fillmore 2003, 207). However, according to Fillmore, our conceptual frames prototype these scenes by foregrounding or highlighting only certain frame elements (212).
In my view, applying Goffman's and Fillmore's insights on framing and prototyping frame elements to the Lakoff–Johnson view of metaphor constitutes a logical approach to understanding the transference-by-mapping of metaphor. The conceptual frame evoked by individual words retrieves our experiences from the source domain and automatically maps them to the target. Metaphors work not only by highlighting but also by neglecting some properties of the source from which we draw in order to understand a given metaphor (Goatly 1997, 1–3). The process by which differences are overlooked and similarities are selected in mapping metaphors can be achieved by prototyping the target domain or, as I prefer to call it, “foregrounding.” In foregrounding, the target domain determines the necessary elements of the experiences constitutive of the source domain that are most relevant for understanding a given metaphor.
In summary:
Words, metaphors, and events evoke conceptual frames within a specific context of use. A frame consists of an experienced conventional sequence of events or common behavior patterns that help make sense of the world around us.
12
Elements of the frame most relevant for understanding the target domain in a metaphor are foregrounded in the source domain as determined by the target domain. Metaphors are understood by mapping these foregrounded elements from the source to the target domain.
Metaphorical references to sex in the Bible
The framing and highlighting strategies just delineated have the advantage of broadening the metaphor category to include a word, experience, action, or event. So, regarding sexual references in the Bible, I will examine what frame each expression evokes and what elements of the given frame are highlighted as relevant for mapping to the target domain.
1) Sex as knowing someone (ידע)—Gen 4.1
The semantic range of the Hebrew term ידע includes knowing information; knowing a person by acquaintance; knowing something by doing it well; being wise; and knowing in the flesh by sexual intercourse. 13 In ידע as sexual intercourse, the highlighted elements are two persons, either in marriage (e.g., Gen 4.1, 17, 25), or as complete strangers (e.g., Judg 19.25), or even in homosexual liaisons (e.g., Gen 19.5; Judg 19.22). Their act of sexual intercourse is framed as “communication” that reproduces their kind.
2) Sex as sleeping with someone (שׁכב)—Ezek 23.8
The semantic domain of the Hebrew term שׁכב includes lying down to sleep (e.g., Gen 19.4; 28.11; 1 Sam 3.5; Deut 7.7; Prov 6.22); lying down to rest for the night in a journey (e.g., Josh 2.1; 2 Kgs 4.11; cf. 9.16, where שׁכב = “to lie ill,” as in Lev 14.47); lying down in death, also described as lying down with one's fathers (e.g., Isa 51.20; Lam 2.21; 1 Kgs 1.21; 2.10; Gen 47.30; Deut 31.16); and lying down with someone to have sexual intercourse (e.g., Gen 30.15, 16; 39.7, 12, 14). 14 Ezekiel 23.8 intensifies the frame of SEX IS SLEEPING by depicting the men caressing the woman's virgin bosom and pouring out their semen on her. 15 While sleeping usually occurs at night, sexual intercourse, as sleeping in the Bible, happens at night and in the daytime. 16
3) Sex as going in to a woman (בֹּא אֶל)—Gen 38.8-9
By far, this is how sexual intercourse is primarily described in the Bible. Having sex is framed as a process of entering a space. Biblically, this phrase includes entering a gate to a place like the Holy Place, a city, or the presence of someone. 17 This way of framing sex highlights the physical dimension of sex as entering a specific space where sex can occur. 18 As a prominent element of sex as entering, penetration is inferred in the story of Onan in Gen 38. Onan, Judah's second son, is obligated by levirate marriage to “go in to” his brother's widow to produce offspring in his brother's name. However, every time Onan “goes in to” his brother's widow, he “spilled his semen on the ground” (NIV), resulting in no offspring for his brother (Gen 38.9). Thus, the phrase “go in to” a woman evokes the act of sex.
4) Sex as touching a woman (נגע)—Gen 20.6
The Hebrew term נגע almost always occurs in a context of touching that brings religious and moral defilement (Clark 1999, 148). 19 For example, in Lev 12.4, refraining from touching sacred objects is part of the purification process of a woman after childbirth. Its usage as a reference to sexual intercourse depicts the possibility of having sex with a woman who is not the man's wife (Gen 20.6; Prov 6.29). Most likely, the source of this conceptual frame comes from the priestly purity regulations. 20 In the New Testament, too, the vocabulary of touch for having sex is used as well (e.g., 1 Cor 7.1). In 1 Cor 7.1-4, Paul alludes to the impropriety of a believer “touching” a woman who is not his wife to confirm the necessity of sex in marriage. This way of framing highlights that a spiritual dimension is intrinsic to sexual intercourse.
5) Sex as washing one's feet (2 Sam 11.8)
The source domain of this metaphorical description of sex comes from a servant welcoming guests who anticipate lodging, rest, and relaxation. 21 The welcoming aspect of “feet washing” is analogous to the consensual part of having sex. Thus, when David tells Uriah to go down to his house and “wash his feet” (2 Sam 11.8), since the king is trying to cover up his sexual involvement with Uriah's wife, the act of washing one's feet in this case certainly carries sexual overtones. David is hoping to cover up his part in Bathsheba's pregnancy by urging Uriah to go to his house and “wash his feet,” that is, to have sexual intercourse with his wife.
6) Sex as spreading the corner of the man's garment (Ruth 3.9)?
This expression first appears in Ruth's request to Boaz in the middle of the night to “spread the corner of his garment” over her (Ruth 3.8-9). The Hebrew term for “corner of a garment” (כָּנָף) also means “wing.” 22 Most likely, the experiential source of this metaphor comes from the eagle spreading its wings to cover her children. This is depicted in Deut 32.11 and Exod 19.4 as a description of God's protection and guidance of his people, especially in dangerous situations.
One might easily take Ruth's request for Boaz to spread the corner of his garment over her as an invitation for sexual intercourse. However, the identical phrase in Ezek 16.8 suggests a marriage proposal (Chisholm 2013, 655). 23 The Hebrew understanding of the phrase “to spread one's wings over someone” is a “euphemistic idiom for marriage” (cf. Ezek 16.8; see Block 1999, 691). For a man to cover a woman with the corner of his garment was an act signifying “the establishment of a new relationship and the symbolic declaration of the husband to provide for the sustenance of the future wife” (Block 1999, 691). The man covers the woman not only with his love and faithfulness but also with his material provision.
7) Sex as drinking from your own cistern (Prov 5.15-19)
This way of describing sex comes from Proverbs (Schellenberg 2018):
24
Here, sex is framed as drinking from a cistern, the water source essential for daily life in the ancient Near Eastern village or city. The routine of everyday life included drawing water from a cistern (Hubbard 1989, 92–93). 25 A cistern collected rainwater and water flowing from a spring; thus it is described as a “fountain” of running water.
In this frame, the “cistern” is the wife; the “water” is the love between the husband and the wife and “drinking” the water is having sex (cf. Prov 7.18). Thus, to “drink water from your own cistern, the streams that flow from your own well” means to “have sexual intercourse only with your wife” (McKane 1970, 318). Just as water is crucial for life, so also is sex necessary for the preservation and continuation of life, as drinking from a cistern highlights. As a cistern, the wife is a “well of fresh flowing water” (Fox 2000, 199). 26 Yet the terms “fountain” and “streams of water” can also imply “semen,” which results in the begetting of “numerous children within the context of marriage and the home” (McKane 1970, 319). In the ancient Near East, the cistern was a public water supply for the village. Here, however, the exclusive nature of marriage is foregrounded by the need for a husband's “private” use of his own “cistern” and not to make it available to “strangers” (Fox 2000, 201).
A cultural narrative most appropriate for Bible translation and public discussion
Having described biblical sexual metaphors using the Lakoff–Johnson–Goffman–Fillmore approach, I wish to consider their application for translating sexual references in a culture such as the Tongan culture, in which discussing sexual matters is taboo. The Lakoff–Johnson–Goffman–Fillmore method helps determine cultural propriety by focusing on the elements of the sexual activity evoked and highlighted by each frame of reference.
In modern-day Tongan culture, the perception of sex as defilement even in marriage is prevalent. Thus, the word for desiring to have sex is fie’uli, which means “wanting to defile oneself.” This perception seems to have emerged from a mistaken view that the original sin was Adam and Eve having sex in the Garden of Eden. Thus, having sex in Tongan is usually called angahala, which means “to sin.”
The informal Tongan term for sex is fai. It means “to do something” or “to work.” This term is a shortened form of its more formal expression, fai-‘oe-‘api, which means “to make a home” or “to do a home.” In the traditional Tongan mindset, sex was always seen as two people making a home where they could exclusively enjoy one another, resulting in having children. However, in the permissive pre-Christian setting, sexual involvement, especially amongst the chiefly class and fugitive European tradesmen, was not restricted to marriage. Thus, the idea of making a home was eventually dropped and the term fai (“to make something” or “to do something”) came to denote promiscuous sexual activity. It foregrounds penetration without the intention of “making a home,” rendering it inappropriate for Tongan Bible translation.
In this connection, biblical expressions that evoke elements such as “entering,” “touching,” “washing,” and even “covering” are excluded as culturally inappropriate because they highlight the physical aspects of sexual activity. Sex as “drinking” is also ruled out based on its connection with “sucking.” Fe’iloaki is the Tongan term commonly used to translate sexual intercourse in the Tongan Bible versions. Its semantic domain includes “meeting” or “knowing” an acquaintance. “Meeting” is the meaning foregrounded in the Tongan language.
In general, however, fe’iloaki is not used to refer to sexual intercourse in public discussions. Its foregrounding of “meeting” makes it too ambiguous as a reference to sexual intercourse. In open-forum discussions, the Tongan term angahala meaning “to sin” is still used to mean “to have sex.” As mentioned, however, angahala is related to the cluster of Tongan terms for sex which have to do with the perception of something dirty and defiling and that term is thus inappropriate for Bible translation.
Thus, sex as knowing—fe’iloaki—seems most suitable for translating biblical expressions for sexual intercourse. Though ambiguous as a sexual reference, it presupposes the context of intimacy and relationship in line with a biblical understanding. Fe’iloaki also conveys a more profound sense of mutual personal knowledge presupposed in consensual sexual intercourse. Due to the ambiguity of the term fe’iloaki as a sexual reference, I suggest adding a modifier that foregrounds the idea of sex as knowing in marriage. In cultures like the Tongan, where sexual intercourse outside of marriage is still considered shameful, it is best to specify that sexual intercourse in the Bible is “meeting as in marriage” or “knowing as in marriage” (in those cases where that is the import). The Tongan expression for this is fe’iloaki fakamali.
As with the translation of inappropriate sexual acts such as prostitution (pa’umutu), fornication (tohotoho), and adultery (fe’auaki), Bible translators have utilized various terms denoting the negative overtones of these sexual activities. The Tongan word for “sleep” (mohe) is used to refer to homosexual activity simply because such a sexual act was unknown or unheard of in pre-Christian Tongan culture, and so there was no word for it. In summary, the term fe’iloaki is generally reserved for sexual intimacy bearing the traditional cultural notion of “meeting to make a home.”
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study demonstrates the relevance of deploying a framing and highlighting strategy for mapping sources to target domains in metaphorical expressions. Such a strategy is a valuable tool for determining the propriety of terminologies for translating sensitive cultural terms such as those dealing with sex. Implementing this strategy in the Tongan culture has shown that concentrating on the communicative aspect of biblical sexual references is most appropriate for Bible translation. This is not to say that the same will be true for translating sexual references in any other culture. Instead, I am offering an approach that can be deployed in different languages and cultures to determine culturally appropriate translations for culturally sensitive biblical concepts and terminologies.