Friday, June 3, 2011

Approaching the Divine Feminine: a male, Jewish Hebrew-Bible translator's musings

     The differences between our two versions [of the creation account in Genesis] are so pronounced that by now some readers may be inclined to conclude that what I have proposed as a complementary relationship is in fact a contradictory one. If, however, we can escape the modern provincialism of assuming that ancient writers must be simple because they are ancient, it may be possible to see that the Genesis author chose to combine these two versions of creation precisely because he understood that his subject was essentially contradictory, essentially resistant to consistent linear formulation, and that this was his way of giving it the most adequate literary expression. Let me explain this first in the notorious contradiction about the creation of woman, and then go on to comment briefly on the larger cosmogonic issues.
     It may make no logical sense to have Eve created after Adam and inferior to him when we have already been told that she was created at the same time and in the same manner as he, but it makes perfect sense as an account of the contradictory facts of woman's role in the poet-edenic scheme of things. On the one hand, the writer is a member of a patriarchal society in which women have more limited legal privileges and institutional functions than do men, and where social convention clearly invites one to see woman as subsidary to man, her proper place, in the Psalmist's words, as a "fruitful vine in the corner of your house." Given such social facts and such entrenched attitudes, the story of Eve's being made from an unneeded rib of Adam's is a proper account of origins. On the other hand, our writer -- one does not readily think of him as a bachelor -- surely had a fund of personal observation to draw on which could lead him to conclude that woman, contrary to institutional definitions, could be a daunting adversary or worthy partner, quite man's equal in a moral or psychological perspective, capable of exerting just as much power as he through her intelligent resourcefulness. If this seems a fanciful inference, one need only recall the resounding evidence of subsequent biblical narrative, which includes a remarkable gallery of women -- Rebekah, Tamar, Deborah, Ruth -- who are not content with a vegetative existence in the corner of the house but, when thwarted by the male world or when they find it lacking in moral insight or practical initiative, do not hesitate to take their destiny, or the nation's, into their own hands. In light of this extra-institutional awareness of woman's standing, the proper account of origins is a simultaneous creation of both sexes, in which man and woman are different aspects of the same divine image. "In the image of God He created him. Male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:227). The decision to place in sequence two ostensibly contradictory accounts of the same event is an approximate narrative equivalent to the technique of post-Cubist painting which gives us, for example, juxtaposed or superimposed, a profile and a frontal perspective of the same face. The ordinary eye could never see these two at once, but it is the painter's prerogative to represent them as a simultaneous perception within the visual frame of his painting, whether merely to explore the formal relations between the two views or to provide an encompassing representation of his subject. Analogously, the Hebrew writer takes advantage of the composite nature of his art to give us a tension of views that will govern most of the biblical stories -- first, woman as man's equal sharer in dominion, standing exactly in the same relation to God as he; then, woman as man's subservient helpmate, whose weakness and blandishments will bring such woe into the world.
     --Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, pages 145-46

The quotation above is fascinating, especially as it makes exactly some of the same points as does Shawna R. B. Atteberry's new self-published e-book, What You Didn't Learn in Sunday School, Women Who Didn't Sit Down and Shut Up, reviewed here.

Alter has his readers "recall the resounding evidence of subsequent biblical narrative, which includes a remarkable gallery of women -- Rebekah, Tamar, Deborah, Ruth -- who are not content with a vegetative existence in the corner of the house but, when thwarted by the male world or when they find it lacking in moral insight or practical initiative, do not hesitate to take their destiny, or the nation's, into their own hands."  Atteberry has her readers do the same.

The quotation above is also fascinating because it gets to the literary that resists Western, Aristotelian thinking.  In the first place, the writer of Genesis clearly values females as equals to males -- whereas Aristotle by his logic (his tightly-boxed up "objectivity") must conclude that females are merely inferior to males, are botched beings of human and of animal species.  In the second place, the literary style of the writer of Genesis defies how Aristotle wanted his male-only Greek-only elite-only students to write.

Michelle Baliff, not a male, not a Greek, not a writer like Aristotle but more like the writer of Genesis, can better help us remember, as Robert Alter does too.   She and the writer of Genesis, as Robert Alter reads him, helps us remember history in relation to "a remarkable gallery of women."  Proper writing doesn't have to abstract out the women and it doesn't need to make, in some legislative or scientific vacuum, disparaging proclamations about the lack of females or the need to contain their speech, their writing, or their stories, which intersect with ours, whoever we are.  Thus, when focusing on histories of men and of women, Baliff recalls, with some protest agains Aristotle, the following:
According to Aristotle’s aesthetics, a narrative must be arranged according to some organizing principle.... Aristotle also offers us the classificatory system of binaries to help us order our stories, to order our experiences, to order ourselves.... But perhaps Woman can (un)speak in the unthought, not-yet-thought, non-spaces produced by alternative paradigms, by new idioms, by paralogical and paratactical and, thus, illegitimate discourses. What... if our narrative had no syllogistic, metonymic, linear or triangular structure? .... What if Truth were a Woman... what then? Cixous replies, Then all stories would have to be told differently....
     --"Re/Dressing Histories; Or, On Re/Covering Figures Who Have Been Laid Bare by Our Gaze," (Rhetoric Society Quarterly, v22 n1 p91-98)

14 comments:

Theophrastus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. K. Gayle said...

Theophrastus,
You seem obsessed with this notion: "Shawna both sticks with the crudest form of Christian anthropomorphism and moreover has a "Mother" who impregnates Mary. In doing so, not only does Shawna describe God as human, but also as a lesbian, and also insults an entire tradition of Christianity that celebrates Mariology (Theotokos).... The answer to sexism is not "more sexism." Yet this is Shawna's cry."

So, let's really look at that translation of the gospel of Matthew Shawna R. B. Atteberry is an associate editor for:

[Chapter One] 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christa was like this: After his mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found pregnant of the Divine Spirit. 19 Joseph, her husband, being a good person and not willing to embarrass her publicly, intended to break their engagement secretly. 20 But when he thought about these things, an angel of the Lady appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, descendant of Bathsheba and David, don’t be afraid to marry Mary, because what is conceived in her is from the Divine Spirit. 21 She will have a son. You will name him Jesus, because he will deliver his people from their sins.”

[Chapter Twenty-Eight] 18 Jesus approached them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 So go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Mother and the Son and the Divine Spirit, 20 teaching them to do everything that I commanded you. I am with you always, even to the end of time.”


There's no mother impregnating here. Likewise, there's no father impregnating in the translation of the gospel of Matthew that Craig R. Smith aka Sewa Yoleme (one of the Priests for Equality) is a translator for:

[chapter 1] 18 This is how the birth of Jesus came about.
When Jesus' mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Joseph, her husband, an upright person unwilling to disgrace her, decided to divorce her quietly.
20 This was Joseph's intention when suddenly the angel of God appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, heir to the House of David, don’t be afraid to wed Mary; it is by the Holy Spirit that she has conceived this child. 21 She is to have a son, and you will name him Jesus -- 'Salvation' -- because he will save the people from their sins.”

[chapter 28] 18 Jesus came forward and addressed them in these words:
“All authority has been given to me
both in heaven and on earth;
19 go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations.
Baptize them in the name
of Abba God,
and of the Only Begotten,
and of the Holy Spirit.
20 Teach them to carry out
everything that I commanded you.
And know that I am with you always,
even until the end of world.”

J. K. Gayle said...

Do compare. In the one translation, "she was found pregnant of the Divine Spirit," while in the other "she was found pregnant through the Holy Spirit." In the one, Jesus's disciples were to be "baptizing them in the name of the Mother and the Son and the Divine Spirit"; in the other, his disciples were to "Baptize them in the name of Abba God, and of the Only Begotten, and of the Holy Spirit."

And since you bring up non-Christian Bible translator Robert Alter, let me now bring up non-Christian and Jewish New Testament translator Willis Barnstone. Barnstone has this for Matthew's Greek (for further comparison):

"The child engendered in her came from the holy spirit."

"Washing them in the name of the father and the son And the holy spirit."

Just to be clear, and absolutely accurate, I don't think Matthew intended for his readers to think that Mary was pregnant from or through or by anyone or anything other than "the Divine Spirit" or "the Holy Spirit" or "the holy spirit." Atteberry and Smith and their translation teams with Barnstone all have their English agree here with Matthew's Greek.

(It seems that you are the one misreading some sort of impregnation by a mother, and a lesbian mother at that. And would you say that Smith and Barnstone are translating so that Mary is having sex, and is with child, because of a father? Is he an incestuous one? Please read more carefully.)

Theophrastus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Theophrastus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. K. Gayle said...

I think Shawna Atteberry's book, What You Didn't Learn in Sunday School, Women Who Didn't Sit Down & Shut Up is important the way I think Robert Alter's book, The Art of Biblical Narrative, is important. Both authors are getting us reading the stories of the women in the Bible against masculinist, misogynist, gynophobic readings of the Bible.

(I'm always willing to discuss how Atteberry is participating in an on-going project of translating and how Alter has translated much of the Hebrew Bible. Maybe he'll continue to translate more. I hope so. Do you know of any plans? At any rate, there are plenty of things I can criticize of both; without even needing to pretend to compare them in any way, I do not like several things of both for different and various and respective reasons. I'm hardly unaware of irony. I'm not sure, however, you're able to see the things Shawna is after.

Today, for a bit, I think I'm ready to slow down the dialogue of ours about the Christian Godde Project since it seems to upset you so, and I feel like I'm having to deal more with or against your emotion than I'm able to reason with you intellectually. Tomorrow, I might see that differently.

I do see that Mark Mattison answers your beef with "assigning a female gender to God." On the Rebuttals page, he'd answered Sheila Casey-Houston, who thanked him for the opportunity to comment, confessed she was still reading, and offered her "opinion that to change the masculine reference to the feminine is still exclusive and puts a gender on the Creator." Casey-Houston's question seems, in content, very like your concern; but she's asking Mark and you're ranting against Shawna, accusing me of things, and demanding I give you answers. BTW, Mark answers kindly, thanking Sheila: "Our intent is to provide a counter-balance to all the divine masculine Bible versions already on offer. There are already two gender-neutral versions currently available, both of which are highly recommended." And Craig's translation he not only highly recommends but he also links to in the sidebar: "The Inclusive Bible / The Twelve"

So I see he's also allowed your complaint now. Or was that Shawna? At any rate, I hope one of them replies to acknowledge your correction.)

Theophrastus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. K. Gayle said...

The "answer" you mention is hardly an answer at all.

It is true that I mention the answer, and I did say that it was an answer to your beef. However, as I also said, this is really Mark Mattison's kind answer to Sheila Casey-Houston's kind and thoughtful question.

Look, I'm not opposed to talking about the Christian Godde Project with you or with anyone who continues to express some sort of interest in it as you do. But as you said to me once about a different topic you were pressing me to discuss with others but you yourself wouldn't jump into:

"why I didn't post -- well, I don't exactly have a pony in the race."

I'm some interested in hearing your opinions about Shawna. I'd also love to hear hers about you. But you're trying to put me in the position of defending her against your rants.

I'd rather just talk with you, or her, with reason, about anything, but mostly about now about her book. That's the pony I like, that and also Alter's "remarkable gallery of women" in plain view of his Genesis writer's clear understanding "that his subject was essentially contradictory, essentially resistant to consistent linear formulation, and that this was his way of giving it the most adequate literary expression." Yep, those are the sorts of horses I'm betting on.

Theophrastus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kristen said...

Switching gears here to talk more about the actual blog post:

What if some of the supposed inferiority of the woman in the second Creation account is attributable to the way it's translated? Robert Alter says:

". . .the story of Eve's being made from an unneeded rib of Adam's. . ."

What I understand is that the Hebrew word is not the word for "rib," but the word for "side." The "adam" (who was not identified as "Ish," male, until after God took the "ishah," woman, out of him) would find its "side" absolutely essential. And if one takes off the masculine-oriented reading, the point being made is that the woman is of exactly the same substance as he-- so there is no way he can consider her lesser, as he does the beasts among whom no "help corresponding to him" was found.

Alter also says:

". . .first, woman as man's equal sharer in dominion, standing exactly in the same relation to God as he; then, woman as man's subservient helpmate. . ."

The "subservient" part isn't actually contained in the idea conveyed by the original words which Alter renders "helpmate" (which is in itself merely a corruption of the KJV "help meet"). The Hebrew word translated "help" is the word used of God as the "help" of Israel. It implies no subservience-- in fact, the one who needs the help is the one in the weaker position, not the one providing the help. The word translated "meet," I understand, actually means "facing him" or "face-to-face," and implies equality. Without that "face-to-face" word, the ancient Hebrew reader might well have concluded that the woman "help" was superior to the man, as God as the "help" of Israel is superior. So "help meet" actually means "equal-to-him strong aid and rescuer."

So I think there's less of an absolute contrast between the two accounts than Alter implies. Both accounts have the woman as the man's equal at creation. A lot of the problem is not sexism in the original text, but in the male translators through the centuries, whose voices really do need to be counter-balanced by womens' voices.

I find the idea of the Bible Atteberry worked on intriguing-- but I would not use it as my main Bible, since what I really want is a gender-accurate translation, not a male-centric or a female-centric one. But it's high time women's scholarship was given some real weight in translation committees, most of which are apparently still 90 - 99 percent men.

Kristen said...

P.S.

I left out a word here: when I wrote,

"And if one takes off the masculine-oriented reading"

I meant to say,

"And if one takes off the masculine-oriented reading glasses."

Theophrastus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. K. Gayle said...

Kristen,
What a smart question:  "What if some of the supposed inferiority of the woman in the second Creation account is attributable to the way it's translated?"

I think some of the earliest women Bible translators asked this.  Julia Evelina Smith, for example, likely asked it.  She translated the whole Bible into English from the Hebrew and the Greek all by herself, without having any help from (i.e., being shut out and shut up by) exclusively male-teams of translators. 

You go on to get us thinking, perhaps, that "there's less of an absolute contrast between the two accounts than Alter implies," and that much "of the problem is not sexism in the original text, but in the male translators through the centuries, whose voices really do need to be counter-balanced by womens' voices."  To be fair to Alter, "he" himself is a male translator and his writer of Genesis, he imagines, is also "male."  Male Bible translator David Rosenberg differently imagines that the Torah writer, "J," is a woman, and this makes a difference.

Authorship and translatorship are important!  And you've noticed how it's "it's high time women's scholarship was given some real weight in translation committees, most of which are apparently still 90 - 99 percent men."  There is bias.  At least Shawna Atteberry's male and female team of Bible translators is, finally, majority female.

I'm not ready to say that the Divine Feminine Version as it progresses will fail to be "gender-accurate translation."  But I'm also not ready just yet to make sharp the distinction you've suggested:  "gender-accurate translation, not a male-centric or a female-centric one."  Of course, I understand the difference.  But whose standard of "accuracy," which sort of accuracy, must we use?  If it's someone as careful as Aristotle, then I think we've got problems from the start.

From Aspasia (whom Aristotle completely ignored despite that fact that his teachers praised her) to Julia Evelina Smith (whom teams of Bible translating men ignored), there's a problem.  Within Judaism, where men dominate Bible translation scholarship, there's a problem.  But the solution really is the real lived experiences of people like Tova Hartman and Rachel Barenblat.  Rachel is asking and seeking answers, even on the Genesis accounts of the creation of woman, as you are.

Theophrastus,
Yes, "a translation" needs to be clear. Whose definition shall we use so as not to mislead? Is that what the Divine Feminine Version team is doing really? Is that what the Sidney's did when they and others called their Psalms a "translation"?

Kristen said...

But whose standard of "accuracy," which sort of accuracy, must we use? If it's someone as careful as Aristotle, then I think we've got problems from the start.

Agreed. I'm keeping an open mind. :)