Leviticus 18 - Uncovering ... = Euphemism?

No, not exactly. I see I'll have to take time to explain fully. My answer here is predicated on the difference between an idiom and a euphemism.

When translating idioms, the exact meaning of the idiom is what is most important to me. However a euphemism is not the same as an idiom. An idiom is: "any expression peculiar to a language, conveying a distinct meaning, not necessarily explicable by, occasionally even contrary to, the general accepted grammatical rules." (Dictionary of Linguistics, Mario Pei & Frank Gaynor, p. 95). In other words, often when you translate an idiom in a strictly literal rendering, the meaning changes and you have failed as a translator.

As a Bible translator, here are my own principles for translating an idiom:
Translate idioms directly in cases where the meaning comes across clearly in the receptor language. When the meaning of an idiom does not make sense in the receptor language, find an equivalent idiom or phrase to reproduce the meaning of the original.

On the other hand, a euphemism is: "the substitution of a word of more pleasant connotation for one of unpleasant or disagreeable connotation" (ibid, 68-69). Now the thing is, a euphemism can usually cross linguistic and cultural boundaries, while an idiom often cannot. As proof, consider that you, our respected thread-starter, began thinking about the passage in question as a euphemism on your own.

Now here's the rub. What if the euphemism is not one, and you translate it as one? Then you've failed as a translator. In this case, you have similar but different statements in the OT. In Lev. 20:17 you have "take" (an idiom for relations) and "see nakedness" (a euphemism), which add up to a clear meaning. However, all through Lev. 18 you have "uncover...nakedness," which is a possible euphemism. Translate it as is and it will likely cross the language/culture barrier. But if it is not a euphemism, then the translator has failed if he renders it as what he thinks the euphemism is.

Personally, I'm not convinced that the phrase "see nakedness" is always a euphemism for carnal relations. The belief that it is goes way back at least to Keil-Delitzsch, but they don't prove it to my satisfaction, and I've not seen sufficient proof elsewhere--though admittedly my expertise is Greek not Hebrew.

 

By the proposed euphemistic interpretation, there will be probably more than just a few voyeurs that will be relieved to know that gazing upon another individual's nude body is not the sin that they may have assumed the Bible was teaching against in those passages (as long as they don't actually fornicate, rape, or otherwise have intimate physical contact with that other person, right?).

 

Hmm, maybe you need to get that sarcasometer adjusted to allow for showoffs who use flowery language! :smilewinkgrin:

Glad you enjoy my posts.

 

First, I find myself not to be under your authority. Your ATTEMPT TO PLACE ANY BURDEN OF PROOF is unsubstanciated except your desire to argue.

www.biblicalheritage.org/Bible/Bible%20Study%20Course/Chapter%203.htm - 35k

www.adath-shalom.ca/body_metaphors_bib_hebrew.htm - 228k

www.geocities.com/bible_translation/otidioms.htm - 8k

See, it's that easy to find multiple websites including the term "Hebrew euphemisms"

I assumed nothing except that the Hebrew uses euphemisms and I have affirmed that already and was not surprised to find that to be so.

Of course you do, I have observed you to be driven by suspicion.

 

Nay, I believe it confirms the necessity to research the Bible further in that simply "seeing someone's nakedness" would not subject one to be under such burden as if they haed sinned.

We should be excited to study our Bible. That would be the objective of any good teacher who genuinely has a concern for their students.

The use of the euphemism is to show both aspects of the uncovering: the physical and the spiritual sin being the physical act and the idea of rape.

The sense being that if the idea to commit sin is also sin, the person wishing to avoid sin is warned as well as the person who had the thought of committing that sin and acting upon it too.

 

Wrong! For if sin is allowed to lie at the door of opportunity, then it would be sin on the person's behalf of making that allowance.

To put it simply, it is not sin to see nakedness, but the chance of it becoming sins relies upon the second look digressing to a prolonged gaze developing into lust, else the following is a total misconception of God:James 1:12Blessed [is] the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.Jam 1:13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:Jam 1:14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.Jam 1:15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.Jam 1:16Do not err, my beloved brethren.

Note: God has no misconceptions, never has, nor will God ever have a misconception.

 

May I cast a load of mums before you in the form of the same type of flattery?:thumbs:

 

I agree that you are not under my authority; nor did I attempt to place you there. I wrote that "you should be willing to support your own claims". I did not say you must.

Following Trotter's quote ('The question was asked whether "uncovering nakedness" is a euphemism.'), Salamander posted: "Of course it is." Four words. That it. No expansion, no explanation, no elaboration, no evidence, and no edification.

I was merely asking for some objective reasons that could allow you to so confidently say "Of course it is.". We'd like you to share what you know, and more importantly, how you came to know it; that is a purpose of this board and this thread in particular.

 

My experiences with some shows much different.

To know what the Hebrew intends from the mind of God in His inspired words, it appears to be nothing less than a euphemism.

To express the actuality of the act condemned by stating "man lying with man" or "woman lying with woman", would be a Greek euphemism.

Our Bible is full of them. We have many other expressions that are even metaphorical in describing the inspired word.

I have shown you only a couple of websites to prove to you that Hebrew uses many euphemisms as well as many idioms.

All languages incorporate many differing language arts to relate meaning, why should Hebrew be any different?

Here's another site that might help describe your demands:

http://www.ldolphin.org/sexriver.html

Now, if common sense tells you anything different, then may I suggest something?

http://www.leithart.com/archives/001316.php

I really don't think I am alone on this one.:godisgood:

 

You may have misunderstood the target of my question. My question "Book, chapter, and verse?" followed your sole example (Heaven is also God) of Hebrew euphemisms. I wasn't doubting that there some euphemisms in the Hebrew scriptures (our OT); I agree that there are euphemisms in the Hebrew text.

The first webpage above ("You Can’t Take Some Words Literally!") does have a section dedicated to "Euphemisms"; under the title "Clearing Up Another Doctrinal Conflict: Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God?" there is a discussion of Matthew 5:3 compared with Luke 6:20. But these are NT verses written in Greek, not in Hebrew. Jewish culture may need to be understood here, but this is not an example of a euphemism in actual Hebraic letters. Some one will notice, so I might as well say it: technically, substituting the word "Heaven" for "God" is not properly a euphemism. An OT verse with a Hebrew word for "Heaven" but to be understood to mean "God" (or vice-versa) would fit the bill.

The second webpage deals extensively with OT euphemisms. There are three very well organized Tables: one chart covers the use of the word "heart" in the Hebrew scriptures; the second chart covers metaphors of some other body parts; the last chart is "A Few Euphemisms In Biblical Hebrew". There is no reference to a "Heaven" and "God" euphemism. Interestingly, there is a record for "nakedness" with four verse examples; but the website equates this word with "sexual shame" (not precisely the act of physical intercourse).

The third webpage dealing with idioms and metaphors also, does list about six actual euphemisms in the OT (out of approximately 70 example verses). There are no NT verses, as expected. None were about the words "heaven" with "God". No verses listed from Levitcus either (as dealing with the OP).

I agree that its easy to get search results, and I had found those in the same manner. However, they don't support your 'Heaven, it is also "God" in the Hebrew' statement. I hadn't found any that support your claim. Neither have you provided any yet.

 

Good, for a moment you had me scared there.

I disagree. Many atheists believe in a heaven, but not a God.

I 'll have to ask your definition of sexual shame in the context of Leviticus?

Nice nit-picking there, but isn't it understood that Heaven in the O.T. is the same Heaven in the New?

 

Thanks for sharing those websites. They seem to be substantially related to the OP issue, although I haven't studied them at length and I cannot say that I endorse them yet.

 

Then I must have done an adequate job of representing the 'other side' of the debate. I'm not nearly as strongly opposed to the phrase "uncovered nakedness" being accepted as a Hebrew euphemism as I may have argued during this thread. I assumed that a literal interpretation of "uncovered nakedness" would be the minority opinion, so I just took it up to see where it would lead us.

 

I need your help: I don't know what you specifically disagree with. That "Heaven" isn't a proper euphemism for "God", is that it?

Your second sentence didn't help me narrow it down either. Although, it is a very intriguing statement. I personally have never met any atheists that believe in a "heaven". I don't know how they could; it denies their core philosophy (that all there is to living is what can be naturally experienced)! I think I'd have to say those people aren't truely atheists.

 

The original religion of China was the worship of the monotheistic God, Shang Ti ("The Emperor Above"). Interestingly enough, the name used for Shang Ti by Confucious in his writings was Tien, meaning "Heaven!"

 

Mum's the word.

 

These have not really been brought to bear upon this subject yet, but to "lie" (Hebrew shakab Strong's #7901 includes of sexual relations, sexually) and to "know" (Hebrew yada Strong's #3045 includes to know a person carnally) are two other terms used in the OT and often interpreted as meaning sexual intercourse. Other words that are used metaphorically or figuratively have a definition designated as such in Thayer's lexicon.

However, neither of Hebrew words from Leviticus 18:6-19 have any nonliteral sexual definitions listed: galah Strong's # 1540 meaning to uncover, remove, reveal; 'ervah Strong's #6172 meaning nakedness, nude, shame (this entry does indicate that exposed or undefended is a figurative usage.) Perhaps this is merely an oversight?

Anyway, the Hebrew phrases like "lay with her father" (Genesis 19:33), "whosoever lieth with a beast" (Exodux 22:19), and "Adam knew Eve his wife" (Genesis 4:1, 4:25) seem to be much more obvious terms for intimate relations.

Finally, the most explicit words I found were shekobeth (Strong's #7903 which seems to have only one definition: copulation), and the related shekaba (Strong's 7902 which is translated both carnally and copulation at times in the KJV). How might "uncovered nakedness" be used differently by the Hebrew language than these other better contextually defined terms? But are they all precisely synonymous? Was it possible to uncover some one's nakedness without actually lying with them? Was there a question about whether lying with a person would necessarily uncover their nakedness? Notice Leviticus 20:11 (KJV)--

And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. ​

 

Good research, franklinmonroe! :thumbs: