Pointed metaphors and why translations shy away from them

Warning: if you think the Bible speaks the language, not of men, but of angels, read no further. You are about to be deeply offended. In a two-part series, I will explore the role of sexual organs in two forms of communication: male-on-male gestures of greeting and male-on-male threatening speech. Sicilian and Andalusian traditional practice will serve to illustrate the first kind of communication. 1 Kings 12:10 will serve to illustrate the latter.

“Our” culture no less than any other communicates by means of metaphors. In order to grasp this, it is essential to work with a broad definition of metaphor which takes in both body-language and language in the strict sense.

For example, in terms of body-language, a tight pair of jeans is a metaphor. A blouse which shows cleavage is a metaphor. Context, of course, determines the exact purport of the metaphor, the “tenor,” shall we say, of the “vehicle” (for the sense in which I use these terms, go here).

Then there are metaphors of a linguistic sort. "Give me an example." Neruda looked at his watch and sighed. "Well, when you say the sky is weeping, what do you mean?" "That's easy---that it's raining." "So, you see, that's a metaphor." That’s dialogue in a film which puts somatic and linguistic metaphors on display with great power: Il Postino (The Postman), by Antonio Skármeta. For an excellent overview of The Postman, go here.

It’s possible to fix the concept of metaphor in the broad sense by means of clips from the film.

(1) Metaphorical Speech

(2) Body Language

Metaphors of the kind Pablo Neruda majored in are relatively familiar. Male-on-male somatic and linguistic metaphorical conventions, in comparison, receive less cinematic expression. Nonetheless, male-on-male metaphors form the background to and come to expression in biblical literature more than is usually noticed. See Part Two of this series.

While a pastor in rural Sicily, I was struck by the practice of one man greeting another man by grabbing hold of his testicles. The act is an assertive statement of a male-on-male bond. Henk Driessen in an essay entitled “Gestured masculinity: body and sociability in rural Andalusia” doesn’t mention the testicular form of greeting, but otherwise introduces the subject well enough (go here for the full essay):

Men perform a large number of body-contact gestures when greeting each other or taking leave. These include striking the back of the head, the back of the neck, the chest, or stomach. Such slaps of ‘affection’ among equals and drinking partners are usually executed with considerable force. They communicate a man’s strength and test the other man’s toughness, how much he can take, and whether he is able to control himself.

In Andalusia, as elsewhere in Spain, virility is thought to reside in the testicles [note: I understand what Driessen is getting at, but he confuses “thought” with convention and too facilely equates virility and testicles]. Hence they play an important part in the body language of men in bars [the observation point of Driessen’s study]. Men frequently touch their testicles, lifting them up with one hand, for instance, upon entering a bar, taking a position at a counter, or while driving a point home during a debate. These are all situations in which they have to assert themselves. . . . Testicles are also targets of pranking. A man stealthily approaches a friend, who is involved in a conversation at the counter, surprising him by grabbing his testicles from behind to the amusement of his drinking partners.

Something of the purport of the somatic gestures just described finds expression in metaphorical speech of the same culture. The use of the word cojones (testicles) in Spanish to reference assertiveness is frequent. Precisely because the metaphor is gender-specific, its use in reference to the opposite gender is that much more piquant. For example, “Maria ha le palle quadrate” in Italian means that Mary has balls – “square” balls, literally, a figure of speech whose details do not carry over from one language to the other very successfully.

A throwaway question for those interested in sociobiology: how does this relate to nature, red in tooth and claw? (I thus return to a discussion Duane and I were have having). I’ve read that chimpanzees often use an erection as a display to their rivals, and baboons grab a friend's testicles in greeting. Google the previous sentence if you are looking for exact references.

To be continued.

Comments

[Sam Norton]

Two things: i) are you going to talk about the custom of grabbing testicles in order to pledge allegiance (I think translated as 'thigh' in modern English; I'm thinking of passages in the OT)?; ii) are you familiar with the story of how and why Wittgenstein realised his earlier theories about language were mistaken? "Wittgenstein and Piero Sraffa, a lecturer in economics at Cambridge, argued together a great deal over the ideas of the Tractatus. One day (they were riding, I think, on a train) when Wittgenstein was insisting that a proposition and that which it describes must have the same 'logical form', the same 'logical multiplicity', Sraffa made a gesture, familiar to Neapolitans as meaning something like disgust or contempt, of brushing the underneath of his chin with an
outward sweep of the finger-tips of one hand. And he asked: 'What is the logical form of that?' Sraffa's example produced in Wittgenstein the feeling that there was an absurdity in the insistence that a proposition and what it describes must have the same 'form'. This broke the hold on him of the conception that a proposition must literally be a 'picture' of the reality it describes.' (From Norman Malcolm's memoir)

[Justin Richter]

Its funny that you brought up 1 Kings 12.10. I preached on it a little while ago to a group of young adults. The metaphor wasn't too shocking for them because it seems men will always be men. Do you think its a universal male trait to compare finger sizes?:)

[Tommy]

Read any Ricoeur? You'd love him.

[JohnFH]

Sam,

No, I'm not planning to cover the ground you suggest. It would be interesting, but more that I can bite off at the moment. The anecdote about Wittgenstein and Sraffa is precious. Thanks.

Justin,

In the end, I think it helps people to know that the Word of God contains within itself a witness to such things and such language. Otherwise salvation would regard not us, but us without the parts we like to pretend are not a part of who we are.

Tommy,

I love Ricoeur and have read my share of him. I like his concept of reading the Bible from the point of view of a second naivete.

[Ranger]

John,
What does Ricouer mean by that? I've heard so many people say that they are looking for a second naivety in their spiritual experience, but I've never understood it. Does he mean a movement back to a pre-critical state in our reading?

[JohnFH]

Hi Ranger,

No, Ricoeur means a *post*-critical naivete, if you get the difference.

Here's an example, which you may or may not like. For reasons of intellectual honesty (I may be wrong about it, but nonetheless), I am not and cannot be a YECer (a young earth creationist). The evidence for an incredibly old universe with a Big Bang at the beginning across multiple scientific disciplines seems strong.

Yet, when I read Gen 1:1-2:4, I think of 24 hour days, concluding with a 24 hour Shabbat or day of divine rest. Within the world of the text, a naive reading of that kind seems right. It speaks the truth to me on several levels.

Then, I can step back and remember that a thousand years are as a day to the Lord.

On the other hand, as a post-critical "naive" reader, I don't have to resolve anything, because I see Gen 1:1-2:4 as expressing cosmological truth and knowledge, science in the highest sense, which remains that on a level of abstraction above that of the physical and biological sciences.

In short, "critical" forms of knowledge are not set aside, but neither are they allowed to stand *above* and *in judgment of* "naive" knowledge whose source is revelation.

Just thinking out loud. What I've said probably needs qualification in more than one sense. But perhaps the drift is clear.

[Virility]

"Warning: if you think the Bible speaks the language, not of men, but of angels, read no further. You are about to be deeply offended."

You did a great job with this one, you had nearly explained the two things very well, glad I had dropped by to your post