These two verses use some ugly imagery. Here is what they say: “If you come across a stone that someone has used to wipe themselves with, you gag at it. If you happen to get your fingers in a lump of dung, you shake your hand to try to get it off. Well, lazy people are like that [stone/dung].” Ben Sira does not like lazy people.

The indolent may be compared to a filthy stone: Stones were apparently used for wiping oneself after a bowel movement. Here the lazy person (the indolent) is compared to such a stone. In some cultures it will be better to use more refined language in order not to offend readers. An alternative model is “We may compare lazy people to a filthy stone.” A footnote would then be in order explaining the custom mentioned above. However, in cultures where it will be natural to refer openly to “dung,” we may say “We may compare lazy people to a stone covered with dung.” It will still be helpful to provide a cultural note explaining this custom.

And every one hisses at his disgrace: Hisses refers to some kind of sound a person might make to indicate disgust with something foul. Translators may express it by whatever would be done by the people speaking their language. The disgrace of laziness is like the filth of the stone.

An alternative model for verse 1 is:

• It is a complete disgrace to be lazy; it’s like the filth [or, dung] on a stone someone has wiped himself with.

The indolent may be compared to the filth of dunghills: A dunghill is not a hill. It’s a pile of dung left by an animal or a person. Some translate it “lump of dung” (New American Bible, New English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). This line may be rendered “A lazy person is like a pile of dung.”

Any one that picks it up will shake it off his hand: Anyone that accidentally picks up a piece of dung will get rid of it immediately.

An alternative model for verse 2 is:

• Being around a lazy person is like getting your fingers in a pile of dung. You can’t get rid of it fast enough.

Good News Translation combines verses 1 and 2. The result is acceptable, but not as strong or descriptive as ben Sira’s language. While this Handbook would prefer that the foulness of the imagery here be preserved, as the examples above try to do, translators must decide for themselves what kind of language is appropriate in their culture.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Sirach. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.