The double conversion of Ben-Hur
A case of manipulative translation
Nitsa Ben-Ari | Tel Aviv Univresity
Ever since the 18th century revival of Hebrew literature, translation has been considered an efficient tool for ideological manipulation. Christianity has been a traditional candidate for such manipulation. Fear and hatred of the “younger” religion may have accounted for the subversive treatment of Christian elements in Hebrew texts. Strategies varied, depending on period and norm, mostly involving omission of undesirable material, but often converting the text into a more acceptable ideological type. Ben-Hur: A tale of the Christ (1880) by Lew Wallace is one of the novels most translated and most tampered with, and due to its predominantly Christian character, it can serve as an illuminating case study both for the subversion of Christian elements and for the more “creative” conversion into the “Few against Many” or “Jewish bravura against the Roman Empire” model.
Keywords: ideological manipulation, subversion of translated texts, self-censorship, Christianity & Judaism, Jesus in Jewish & Hebrew culture, fear of the “Other”, history rewritten, conversion and assimilation in translated literature, translation norms, shifting of norms, adaptation for children
Article outline
- Foreword
- Part I
- The Phobia: An overview
- Assimilation: Forced and voluntary
- Part II
- The double “conversion” of Ben-Hur
- Ben-Hur: A tale of the Christ
- Why Ben-Hur
- The corpus
- Large-scale omissions
- The problematic of Book First (Heb.IV and Heb.VIII)
- Ideological Manipulations in Book Second–Book Eighth
- 1.The first meeting between Ben-Hur and Christ
- a.Omission of the whole scene.
- b.Retaining the scene but omitting or manipulating the Christian elements in it.
- 2. The cure of leprosy
- 3. The Crucifixion
- 1.The first meeting between Ben-Hur and Christ
- Ben-Hur: Jewish bravura against the Roman Empire
- 1.Titles and subtitles
- 2.Texts on jackets, back of books, front page
- 3.Additions and modifications necessitated by the new model
- Some points for conclusion
- The double “conversion” of Ben-Hur
- Notes
-
References
Published online: 19 June 2003
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.14.2.05ben
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.14.2.05ben
References
References
Auerbach, Berthold
Ben-Ari, Nitsa
Bialik, Chaim Nachman
Brandon, S.G.F.
Breuer, Mordechai
Eggert, Hartmut
Eshed, Eli
Even-Zohar, Basmat
Even-Zohar, Itamar
Fisch, Harold
Freiman, Ray
Gertz, Nurith
Govrin, Nurit
Harap, Louis
Jost, Isaak Markus
Kerr, James
Kleinberg, Aviad
Kremers, Heinz
Mayo, Louise A.
Meyer, Michael A. and Michael Brenner
Michael, Reuven
Preminger, Alex
Scholem, Gershom
Schorsch, Ismar
Schwartz, Daniel
Shavit, Yaacov
Shavit, Zohar
Sheffi, Na’ama
Toury, Gideon
Volkov, Shulamit
Wallace, Lewis
Cited by
Cited by 6 other publications
Asscher, Omri
Ben-Ari, Nitsa
Vandepitte, Sonia & Els Lefever
Weissbrod, Rachel
Wolf, Alain
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.