On Translated Works

Saint Augustine’s thoughts on the difficulties of translation, as posed in his work, On Christian Teaching, struck me as particularly interesting.  Before reading Book II, I did some background research and discovered that Saint Augustine wrote all of his in Latin.  To read the translated words of Saint Augustine’s thoughts on the difficulties of translation was interesting indeed, but I found that his thoughts on the symbolic nature of language and translation were much more intriguing.

Specifically, Saint Augustine views language as a system of symbols, both written and verbal, that represent both the material and the intangible.  According to Saint Augustine, it is not so much the language itself that is important, but the ideas that the language is attempting to convey (40).  Thus, Augustine is less concerned with the rules of language than he is the meaning of the thoughts that are being conveyed (41).  Augustine later goes on to emphasize that learning and exploring the intricacies behind languages should really only be explored as a way of furthering one’s knowledge and understanding of the greater Truths (54).  It is precisely this alteration of meaning that bothers Saint Augustine when one is exploring a translated work; inexperienced translators (and sometimes even well-versed scholars) can lose some or all of the originally intended meaning behind a passage when they translate it.  With this in mind, a translation that works best takes culturally significant information into account and attempts to get to the root of the original meaning.

This perspective is particularly useful when looking at the Psalms, as many of the Psalms contain phrases or references that are not familiar to our cultural sensibilities, or may not have cultural equivalents for our society.  For example, in Psalm 37 Alter notes that the simile of wicked men and the withering of grass is best understood with the knowledge that Israel has a growing season that was followed by an extremely dry hot season (killing most vegetation with dispatch).  While we as American’s (specifically Wisconsinites) don’t have a perception of grass as a quickly dying plant that withers under the hot sun, we can better understand this specific simile once we understand the meaning behind the original words.  Without these culturally significant pieces of information, one can easily miss the intended meaning (what Saint Augustine considers to be most important in a text) behind a word or a phrase.  By paying close attention to the cultural background and intended meaning (often a word has more than one meaning in a given situation), one can better understand translated texts.  In particular, I found the footnotes to be indispensable when I was reading the Psalms; I understood much more after the additional information behind the words was presented.  With this in mind, while translated works are often difficult to fully understand, they can convey the same ideas that the original text did, but simply do so in a different manner.  With this in mind, I think it would be interesting to see if Saint Augustine’s ideas were translated in a manner that encapsulates the essence of his original ideas.    

Additional Post: Male Circumcision Lecture

This last Wednesday I had the opportunity to attend a talk by Professor Robert Bailey. Professor Bailey spoke about the benefits of circumcision for HIV/AIDS prevention, but he also spent a fair amount of time talking about the religious and cultural significance of this practice. I found it particularly interesting that Professor Bailey decided to elaborate on the interconnectedness of a specific religious tradition and its practical health benefits.

During his lecture, Professor Bailey stressed that circumcision has been around for a long period of time, and that it predates the formal foundation of both Judaism and Islam. However, male circumcision is a extremely important tradition in both of these cultures. Although circumcision may be done for aesthetic or personal reasons, it also offers many potential health benefits. Specifically, male circumcision allows for the keratinization of the inner mucosal membrane of the foreskin (which is prone to inflammation and infection).

Apparently, circumcision is practically a necessity for people living in sandy desert climates. Professor Bailey noted that during the first World War, over 170,000 American troops were hospitalized with serious infections that were caused by particles of sand trapped under the foreskin. After these troops returned home, male circumcision became commonplace in America (in areas like the Midwest, approximately 90% of all men are circumcised). In this way, a beneficial medical procedure became medically and culturally commonplace.

Similarly, it is thought that the religions of Judaism and Islam adopted the previously existing procedure of circumcision and turned it into a rite of passage. Specifically, in the religion of Judaism, male circumcision is now supposed to be an outward symbolic representation of the eternal covenant between God and all Jewish people. I find this particularly interesting, as one generally wouldn’t associate a specific medical procedure with a religion. However, in terms of fostering a group identity, I can hardly think of a more personal form of body modification that is shared by a group of people. This certainly relates to the ability of religions to adopt beneficial practices and change over time; by imbuing a necessary and beneficial medical procedure with religious meaning, both Judaism and Islam ensure health and a stronger sense of community.

Analogies in the Psalms

Earlier this year I wrote a paper that focused on the disadvantages of using metaphors and similes in scientific writing. To briefly summarize my argument, I feel that analogies, although engaging, can divert attention from the core principles of a theory. Furthermore, analogies can be downright distracting. However, one of the things that struck me most as I was reading the book of Psalms was the artistic use of metaphor and language to describe intense religious emotions and experiences. Many of these analogies reminded me of the works that we studied earlier this year in Freshman Studies (particularly Chaung Tzu), and I would like to do a more thorough examination of the purpose and function of the analogies in the book of Psalms.

The first Psalm contains a simple yet elegant simile: “And he shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, that bears its fruits in its season, and its leaf does not wither- and in all that he does he prospers. Not so the wicked, but like chaff that the wind drives away” (4). This imagery of one seed being guided by a river to a favorable destiny as opposed to a solitary seed being battered around in a hostile environment directly connects to the underlying ethic found in the Psalms; one cannot survive without the guidance and beneficence of the LORD (YHWH), and those who discard their beliefs will be subject to the cruelties of the world.

Another analogy that struck me as particularly powerful is found in Psalm 42: “As a deer yearns for streams of water, so I yearn for You, O God” (148). This simple sentence conveys the intense desire and primal thirst that man feels for god; the god-shaped vacuum that I mentioned earlier this year. Similarly, the seemingly unfair prosperity of evildoers is explained by Psalm 37: “Do not be incensed by evildoers. Do not envy those who do wrong. For like grass they will quickly wither and like green grass they will fade.” Simply saying that bad people will eventually get their comeuppance is not as strong as the visual imagery of seemingly-flourishing grass quickly dying and losing all of its attractive color.

The purpose that these analogies serve is simultaneously simple and complex. On a baser level, they are generally quite appealing and beautiful; I was initially drawn to these specific lines because of their engaging traits. Indeed, this is one of the main reasons that I feel metaphors are not as appropriate in scientific texts. However, the analogies found in the book of Psalms also express human emotion and qualitative aspects of life in a way that would otherwise be difficult or impossible. One cannot quantize a desire for God in a consistent manner; every individual’s experience and perception is different. However, by using elegant analogies, the authors of the Psalms express abstract human emotion and thought in a way that is much more accessible and engaging than any other method that comes to my mind. Much like the analogies found in Chuang Tzu’s Basic Writing, I feel that the analogies in the book of Psalms strengthens the overall text and makes it more accessible.

The Ethical Stance of the Psalms

At first glance, Alter’s translation of The Book of Psalms does not appear to focus intently on the traditional ethical code that most individuals associate with Christianity. No lists of prescriptive rules are found in the text, and references to specific sins are few and far between. However, there is an interesting perspective of appropriate ethical action that underlies the majority of The Book of Psalms, and this ethical stance focuses primarily on piety and accountability for one’s actions.

One does not have to look far to see the basis of this ethical philosophy. Psalm I clearly states that “the wicked will not stand up in judgment, nor offenders in the band of the righteous. For the lord embraces the way of the righteous, and the way of the wicked is lost” (4). Essentially, the LORD will judge and punish individuals who are not just, but he will reward and protect those who are righteous. There is a certain immediacy to this judgement and punishment that we talked about in class, and this can be seen in Psalm 86 when the author notes that “The LORD indeed will grant bounty...Justice before Him goes, that He set His footsteps on the way” (302). This trend of seeing justice as the preferable action to dishonesty and corruption, and the direct consequences of one’s actions in this world is repeated throughout the Psalms.

As an extension of this concept, simply being a just individual is not enough to gain the LORD’s favor according to the Psalms; one must worship the LORD dutifully and live one’s life in a pious manner. According the Psalm 30, one should “Hymn to the LORD...acclaim his holy name” (102). Essentially, one must act justly towards one’s fellow man; to fall in the LORD’s good graces one must dutifully worship the God of Israel (YHWH).

These prescriptive ethical codes of action contained in the Psalms seem unlike the current model associated with Christianity and Judaism. Unlike many religions, the book of Psalms seem primarily concerned with the importance of actions and beliefs in this world and the immediacy of the subsequent consequences. Some specific recommendations of action are given in the book of Psalms, but they are fairly general. For example, the author of Psalm 7 writes that “one spawns wrongdoing, grows big with mischief, gives birth to lies. A pit he delved, and dug it, and he fell in the trap he made” (20). Although some direct recommendations are made in the Psalms (do not lie, steal, or be mischievous), generally the code of action endorsed is assumed to be already known by the religious follower. This forces the individual to assume that all actions are being scrutinized and that one must always do what one considers just. This seems like a livable ethic, but at the same time it would be one that would completely pervade all aspects of one’s life. Although the specific rewards and punishments associated with an afterlife seem to be missing from this ethical code, the potential for divine intervention (especially vengeful punishment) would probably make an ethical code like this quite successful. I personally couldn’t see myself living under that sort of scrutiny, but given a different cultural environment I can see how this ethical code might potentially strengthen my sense of identity or group belonging.

Religious Changes as a Result of Culture

Today in class we talked about the interplay between spirituality and culture that we observed in Alter’s The Book of Psalms. In a few of my previous blog posts I mentioned various ways that religion affects cultural perceptions and social structure, but I skimmed over the instances in which religion is influenced by environmental (cultural/socioeconomic) pressures. Specifically, in my last post I mentioned that the same religious ideas can be interpreted in numerous ways as cultures change and shift perspectives. However, I would like to use this post to comment on some of my personal observations regarding the changes that culture can elicit in a religion.

This post was prompted by an article that I read earlier this year (found here). To briefly summarize, the Vatican recently released a list of actions that are now considered sinful behavior for adherents of the Catholic faith. These sins include polluting the environment and some forms of genetic manipulation. This is quite a stretch from the original seven deadly sins of lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. However, as the article states, “the Vatican says it is time to modernize the list to fit a global world.”

This abrupt change is quite interesting, because before I took Rlst 100 I did not anticipate that religions would change their fundamental doctrines to function more effectively. However, if religion is a dynamic system that allows people to interpret and give meaning to their existence, it makes sense that religion can and should change to fit the environment in which it is practiced. The true nature of religion, the interpretation and usage of idea (not the ideas themselves), is readily apparent when one looks at religion this way; people are sometimes willing to change their religion as it becomes necessary.

Although it seems counterintuitive to change the traditions and regulations that have operated effectively for such a long period of time, it is this change that is partly responsible for the longevity of certain religions. If religions were static institutions they would quickly become obsolete, because society readily develops new technologies and perspectives for interacting with the world. For example, several years ago when inoculations for chickenpox were becoming available, there was some concern that the vaccines were tested using human embryos. This was a clear violation of Roman Catholic doctrine of the time, as research on human embryos was considered immoral, and “the tainted tree bears tainted fruits.” However, the church made an exception, because the good that could come out of inoculating infants outweighed the moral contradiction in Catholic law. It is changes like these that allow religion to adapt to the ever-evolving cultural climate, and this, in part, is why various religions have been so successful at spreading and maintaining a global presence.

Comparison of Different Translations of Psalm II

The most readily apparent difference between Alter’s translation and the Bay Psalm Book’s version of Psalm II is the metrical organization and diction. Although these two aspects of the Psalms are seemingly less important than the actual content, the changes in metrical structure and diction shift the emphasis of the Psalm itself and imbue it with alternative meaning. It is appropriate to note that both the Bay Psalm Book and Alter’s The Book of Psalms are translations that were created during different time periods in different cultures. As such, the translators of these works likely had different perspectives (lenses) through which they saw the world, and these effects are clearly seen in both of these translations.

The first aspect that I would like to focus on is the metrical organization of Psalm II in the Bay Psalm Book and Alter’s The Book of Psalms. Alter specifically chooses not to have a rigidly defined meter in his translation, as the original Hebrew texts have no such structure (xxi). However, the Bay Psalm Book has a defined metrical structure; the first and third lines contain eight syllables, while the second and fourth contain six (this pattern continues throughout the Psalm). The translators of the Bay Psalm Book omitted words in some places and added them in others to create this structure, but Alter chooses to stick with the most literal translation, claiming that the significant content is generally found within the Hebrew poetic style of parallelism (xxi).

Another interesting aspect of these two translations of Psalm II is the translators’ diction. For example, in the Bay Psalm Book the translators choose the words furiously, rage, and heathen. However, Alter simply uses the word aroused and substitutes nation for heathen. Throughout Psalm II, the language of the Bay Psalm Book is much more personal and intense, while Alter’s translation seems much more political, almost like a motivational speech. Furthermore, every other line of the Bay Psalm Book rhymes with another line (either two lines before or after it). For example, lines 12 and 10 rhyme suddenly/he, and lines 22 and 24 rhyme abroad/rod. This choice of words forced the Bay Psalm Book translators to rearrange sentences and this in turn shifted focus away from the parallel sentence structure.

The differences between these translations can probably be explained by an examination of the different perspectives that influenced the translations themselves. As Alter note in his foreword, he is particularly interested in preserving the original parallel structure and removing the distracting references, especially the ones with significant cultural baggage attached. Writing from this academic tone, it seems like Alter views Psalm II as more of a political call to arms than a personal expression of desire for help when one is surrounded by non-believers (he uses the word nation instead of heathens). However, the Bay Psalm Book appears to be much less concerned with an accurate representation of the original Hebrew text. In contrast to Alter’s translation, the Bay Psalm Book is much more accessible and applicable on an individual level; one could easily imagine a newly-arrived pilgrim praying for guidance as he/she stands surrounded by a land of so-called “heathens”. This use of the same religious ideas (the original Hebrew text) in different cultural contexts emphasizes the importance of the consideration of different perspectives when thinking about religion. Essentially, these different perspectives shifted the meaning of the Psalms to suit the cultural/social environment of the early Pilgrims and Alter, but this is certainly not the only place where this concept can be seen. Much like the Indian mounds of Wisconsin, similar original ideas were interpreted and used by different people in different manners as culture and society required it.

Effects of Religion on Social Structure

Near the end of class today we started to talk about the possible functions of the Indian mounds found in Wisconsin. Although we discussed many potential uses and purposes of these mounds, the only solid conclusion we came to was that the function of the mounds changed over time. Similarly, Birmingham and Eisenberg do not give a singular answer, but instead suggest that the mounds held different purposes and meaning for different people (141). The societal function of the mounds changed over time, and eventually the ceremonial building of mounds stopped when culture no longer required it. One of these purposes that we briefly mentioned in class is the clear definition of social groups and the potential establishment of hierarchical social systems.

In the Paleo-Indian and Archaic time periods most of the mounds were conical and burials were done with many individuals (77). As time progressed and effigy mounds became more frequent, the function of the mounds as burial sites decreased significantly, and many mounds contained no bodies at all (127). Finally, as culture changed and social patterns shifted, the emergence of Mississippian temple mounds and more extravagant burials like the “princess” mound became more prevalent (147, 159). This progression makes sense; the change from disorganized nomadic living to more established social centers was accompanied by an increase in social stratification and the symbolic representation of this newly-created system. Also, as population centers increased in size, the creation of larger and more elaborate mounds was possible. Birmingham and Eisenberg state that “the effigy mound ceremonial helped bind people together...forming a new horticulturally based social confederation with distinct clan structures organized into upper and lower divisions” (141). The mounds, although probably not originally meant as a social indicator (for individuals or communities), became a representation the Native American’s early social structure. However, these mounds influenced societies as much as they represented them; the immense earthenworks brought together large groups of people and provided a strong physical reaffirmation of the “order of existence” that was generally accepted at the time.

Similar interplay between religion and social structure can be seen today. At first glance, the United States does not seem to have social segregation based on religious affiliation. However, a brief look at the political world shows major disparities in religious representation (1.7% of the USA is Episcopalian, but 15.4% of all presidents have been Episcopalian). Similarly, the current religious composition of the United States Congress is non-representative of the general population- there is not a single individual who openly claims to be an atheist! If nothing else, religion seems to play a large part in how we view our social leaders. The caste system of India is an even better example of the religious influences on the creation and mediation of social structures; people are born into, work in, live in, marry in, and die in religiously affiliated groups (see diagram below for visual representation). Overall, I feel like the connection between culture and religion is strong, but it is interesting that religion can affect cultural and social patterns as much as be an expression of them.

Religious and Symbolic Significance of Various Animal Representations

Blog Question #2: Were the animal-shaped mounds of Wisconsin different from the animal representations in Lascaux Cave or the animals in the name of sport clubs (i.e. Chicago Bears)? What might be the religious significance of these representations of animals, thinking in terms of our own definition of religion?


Although the artistic media are different, the animal-shaped effigy mounds of Wisconsin and the cave paintings of Lascaux share many common traits with modern animal symbolism. First and foremost, a symbol is simply one thing used to represent another thing. The Lascaux cave paintings, the mounds of Wisconsin, and even the modern-day animal symbols of sports teams have undeniable symbolic meaning, but the religious significance of these things are somewhat more evasive.

Before I examine the similarities and differences between various animal representations, I should make my position on the importance of symbols known. I don’t think it is the nature of the symbol itself that is most significant, but rather the interpretations and uses of the symbol. For example, focusing on the physical differences between a peace symbol printed on a shirt and a similar symbol on a belt buckle will not be as revealing as an examination of what the symbol has meant to different people over the last half-century. It is the interpretations and uses of the symbol that are most important.

The cave paintings of Lascaux and the mounds of Wisconsin are a representation of the culture and environment that their creators were a part of. More importantly, both Native Americans and Paleolithic individuals in France both perceived their world in such a way that they decided to express their thoughts in a symbolic form. These thoughts and their expressions, directly or not, are a byproduct of the religious perspectives that influenced these individuals’ perceptions of the world (lenses). These symbolic animal representations may have not been worship objects, but they were certainly influenced by the beliefs of the people who created them. Specifically, both the painters at Lascaux and the creators of the Native American eathenworks sought to express their perceptions of the natural world, specifically the animals that were an important part of their lives, in a symbolic manner. This symbolic interpretation and explanation of one’s existence is an essential part of any religious system. Although the animal symbols of sports teams don’t carry the same religious weight as the upperworld/lowerworld symbolism of the Native Americans (Birmingham 89, 108) or the paintings found in the Shaft of the Dead Man, the sports symbols can still inspire strong feelings in people and the symbols certainly have significant meaning. For example, the sports logos of the Atlanta braves (Chief Wahoo) was strongly protested by individuals who felt that the symbol was racist. Although symbols aren’t always specifically religious, they are interpretations of experience and they do carry connotations that can inspire intense feeling. If Geertz is correct in saying that religion is a “system of symbols”, then perhaps these cave paintings, animal-shaped effigy mounds, and even some sports symbols have deep-seated meaning/religious importance to some people.

The Human/Nature Boundary

Near the end of class today we began to talk about the division of humans and animals in the context of Werner Herzog’s film, Grizzly Man. I found the discussion interesting, but there was one particular aspect of the human/nature barrier that I wanted to explore in greater depth.

During class on Wednesday we mentioned the emergence of religion as a human institution. For me, it doesn’t make sense to view religion (at least as we understand it) as a static institution that has always existed. Religion, as a social force, is constantly changing and evolving. This means that religion probably developed simultaneously with symbolic and increasingly sentient intelligence. Why is it that humans in all parts of the world have religious systems? Furthermore, why are so many of the major world religions focused on addressing similar concepts (i.e. appropriate moral actions, purpose of existence, what happens after death). The purpose of this blog entry is not to propose an answer for these questions, but I would like to present a few personal ideas that our discussion prompted.

When we were talking about the separation of humanity from nature, I realized that our self-aware cognitive abilities are really the basis for the human/nature division. Animals, although they form spatial and social boundaries (i.e. marking territory or creating social hierarchies), are not self-aware to the point of personal introspection. Unlike animals, humans are capable of interpreting experiences into cogent ideas, and we are capable of analyzing the nature of existence because of these thoughts. Thus, the separation that we perceive between the natural world and ourselves actually does exist, although it is essentially a byproduct of our minds.

To apply this idea to the film we watched today, we briefly mentioned that Timothy Treadwell may have been looking for a meaning in his existence, but this search for purpose in life is certainly not unique to Treadwell. Humans, as self-aware creatures, are rationally inclined to seek out purpose and meaning in life. To paraphrase Blaise Pascal, all humans are born with a god-shaped vacuum in their heart. This, in part, is why I believe that religion is prevalent worldwide; with conscious thought came the deep-seated urge to explain what we are incapable of understanding. Religion can provide answers, structure, direction, and comfort to an existence that can be cruel and seemingly nonsensical at times.

Response to Clifford Geertz's Definition of Religion

I would restate Geertz’s definition of religion as follows:

Religion is a system of ideas which conveys human perceptions of the general order of existence in a variety of ways. These powerful concepts affect numerous people, and they are presented in a way that appears both factual and uniquely realistic.

Geertz defines religion in a plausible manner, and I think his description of religion as something that encompasses the “conceptions of a general order of existence” is entirely plausible. This conception of a general order of existence is what I believe to be the defining characteristic of religion, and I decided to leave this portion of Geertz’s quote intact. In my mind, an established system of beliefs that relate to larger metaphysical problems is the essential feature of religion. As we discussed in class, many other groups share traits with religions (i.e. symbols, rituals, group mentality, etc.), but very few of these groups have a stated position on the afterlife or origin on the universe.

I’m not entirely sure why Geertz claims that religion is a system of symbols. Obviously symbols are an important aspect of many religions, but symbols are certainly not a unique feature of religion itself. A symbol is simply one thing used to represent another thing, and this is one of primary aspects of human thought. I think that defining religion as a system of beliefs or ideas would have been more effective, but I can see how one could claim that all ideas and beliefs are essentially just symbols for their “real” counterparts (a Plato reference seems mandatory here). Nevertheless, I found this aspect of Geertz’s definition somewhat distracting. Concepts and beliefs are more specific words, albeit limiting, but I think they would be more appropriate in this context...at least that’s what I believe.