tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post2382063923050793493..comments2023-06-08T07:32:39.725-05:00Comments on Aristotle's Feminist Subject: The Difference in Translations and TranslatorsJ. K. Gaylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-21601320129364998182008-09-05T11:49:00.000-05:002008-09-05T11:49:00.000-05:00Scott,Thanks for coming by and commenting. (Someh...Scott,<BR/>Thanks for coming by and commenting. (Somehow I just noticed this today; so sorry for the late reply). I love that you share your own position quite literally here as you show us your vantages and your audiences' vantages as you sing. I like your snapshot thoughts too!<BR/><BR/>For me, the three who've theorized insiderness and outsiderness the best are Kenneth Pike, Jacqueline Jones Royster, and Krista Ratcliff. <BR/><BR/>Pike coins emic and etic to theorize insiderness and outsidernesss. But he also learns language as an "outsider" while talking with an "insider" a native speaker of a language he's never heard or read before--he calls it the "monolingual demonstration." It demonstrates not only language learning in a very short time, but also very very personal interactions with a person, an other, who is the expert insider though Pike an expert linguist humbly takes/ acknowledges his lowly inexpert outsider role.<BR/><BR/>Royster says everyone does well to acknowledge when they're on the outside so as not to speak for the insider. She also says she's multiply inside and outside. As an African American and as a woman and as a scholar and as someone researching in the 20th-21st centuries, Royster studies literate African American women who have studied and spoken long before. She's the same but different.<BR/><BR/>Then Ratcliffe. She's theorized listening as rhetoric, a rhetoric Aristotle ignored. She's done much much with overhearing and with reading other peoples mail, both of which she calls eavesdropping in a positive sense. She emphasizes listening WITH intent over listening TO the intention of the other as if the speaker is the only one who matters.<BR/><BR/>peace indeed--J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-51890394457197310652008-08-19T17:59:00.000-05:002008-08-19T17:59:00.000-05:00jkg--i was floored by the phyllis bird understandi...jkg--<BR/><BR/>i was floored by the phyllis bird understanding that 'translating is “to overhear an ancient conversation, rather than to hear [one]self addressed directly." i sing in small acapella ensembles, and in many ways, when we sing for others, we are allowing them to peek in the window as the five of us 'converse' in 16th century counterpoint. in many ways, we aren't talking directly to them, but rather intimately to each other. this perspective makes me both more tolerant of the scripture texts, and translations, and yet less tolerant as well.<BR/><BR/>i often think of these scripture texts as photographic snapshots, as single moments of a faith community's theology ('faith seeking understanding'). we some how insist that the texts we have are the only snapshot of a particular faith community, yet i'm sure that five years after the reification of the text, new snap shots by each community would appear as well. we want the snapshots we have to be so real, we forget they are snapshots. and we don't really know what all those objects in the background are, what they meant to the community, and who each of the faces in snapshot are.<BR/><BR/>in 1st c. ce, if the demographics are like ours, most of the faces in the snapshots are women-- and unless you were brought up in a matriarchal community, or unless the 'keeper of the snapshots' is a woman, we forget who those women in the snapshot are, and focus on the men.<BR/><BR/>peace--<BR/><BR/>scottscott grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12334188123201041182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-64953280662510469112008-08-18T17:10:00.000-05:002008-08-18T17:10:00.000-05:00Charlie,Thanks for stopping by; you've obviously b...Charlie,<BR/>Thanks for stopping by; you've obviously been doing a lot of thinking.<BR/><BR/>Dannii,<BR/>I'm happy you visited the blog. You're also reflecting very thoughtfully.<BR/><BR/>I've just got a moment to respond. But I'll be musing a long time about your respective questions!<BR/><BR/><I>How would a woman answer the psalmist's question-or formulate it?</I><BR/><BR/>There's an academic named Krista Ratcliffe who does a good job, I think, of talking to (us) lay people. She says we can and should listen, not just FOR the intent of the author (i.e., the psalmist); but we can and should also always listen WITH intent. This is, it seems, what C.S. Lewis does as a novice when he begins reflecting on the Psalms. His first lines of his book Reflections on the Psalms get right to that. In other words, he reads humbly, as a non expert, and as an outsider, but as an outsider with his own intent. With intent, with his own intentions, he listens in.<BR/><BR/>"But there's another interesting question, would believing in the JEPD theory produce a different translation?"<BR/><BR/>Dannii, It's a great question, a rhetorical question, which you know the answer to. My Hebrew prof, Bob Bergen, used to have us look for the unity in the entire discourse of the Torah Shebichtav. I do think seeing such unity is a personal thing, more than one of pure logic. I'm not saying the linguistic or textual cues aren't there; but it takes the human observer to see them there, and there's a bit of the insider perspective that really helps. So a Jewish scholar, who is rejects the Documentary Hypothesis, will translate much differently than someone like Julius Wellhausen. But really, what do you think?J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-63343818080988092792008-08-18T09:26:00.000-05:002008-08-18T09:26:00.000-05:00Well, then don't be distracted by it,........ one...Well, then don't be distracted by it,........ one can easily suffer from analysis paralysis...... it is not only a very insightful essay, but also comforting. "Come fort ye my pe o ple", that's my goal comfort/peace/serenity. Don't let the theological analysis or the feminist rhetoric ruin her message for you. I don't believe she is writing a rant by trying to provide solace.<BR/><BR/>I usually end up getting myself in trouble with this stuff, but think about it..........what viewpoint do you think the priestly writer/s would be coming from.........maybe to make like better or easier or more financially rewarding, and power endowing for the priests?<BR/><BR/>Then ask yourself does this look like what the priestly writers wrote. Do you think God really came up with the 10% tithe, plus whatever they could get by changing the public currency into priestly coin, the only coins they accepted, hhmmm? How bout the people that would receive it. The old follow the money theory.<BR/><BR/>Have you noted that Jesus did not rebel against or discredit the Romans (todays justification for political advocacy not there), check it out he NEVER DID, but against the priests and the whole Temple system, the church they had created in their image. <BR/><BR/>The Bible we have IS the Bible of the JEPD tradition, including R the redactor or editor who combined what was written.......thats why two creation stories......two or maybe even three flood narratives, all runing on sequentially (creation) or concurrently (Noah). Does this mean that the Bible was only written by men? No, but I think the spirit of God may have be distorted at times by the agendas of the men who may or may not have intended to do so. God's message is still in there, you just have to look hard.<BR/><BR/>I like the spot where God says to, Nathan?....why are you building me a temple, do you really think I live in a box? of course then they go on to build the temple anyway.......look it up.....its what the Bible says.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872097932838677378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-67539676749956274662008-08-18T08:49:00.000-05:002008-08-18T08:49:00.000-05:00Unfortunately I was too distracted by Bird writing...Unfortunately I was too distracted by Bird writing from a JEPD framework to find whatever you were referring to.<BR/><BR/>But there's another interesting question, would believing in the JEPD theory produce a different translation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-82079556363492984172008-08-18T07:49:00.000-05:002008-08-18T07:49:00.000-05:00JK, first of all, I am not an academic, and your ...JK, first of all, I am not an academic, and your credentials overwhelm me. I am a retired old f**t, and a male who has been on a driving spiritual search for the last 20 years. I am born again but not in the tradition sense but I have to let that lie (lay?). As I have said in the past my favorite line from a prayer is "Relieve me of the bondage of self." Also, thanks for not commenting in Greek or Hebrew as I do not know those languages. I do not say this in any self effacing manner, for I am not that man.<BR/><BR/>Your insightful analysis and the comments of Phyllis Bird point to a problem that I have with gender neutral language, in that it can obscure the original message. I understand how women may need an affirming source of Biblical knowledge, especially novices to Bible study or to the concept of the love/grace centric message of Jesus. One needs to understand that the "Christian" God is one of love and servanthood to his creation in its entirety. But one also needs to understand what the Bible actually says as well as we can glean it. The Old Testament and pentateuch in particular was written by men (and yes I believe not by God), of middle eastern culture a long time ago. I believe it is overly simplistic to think that one could read anything but a male centered religious orientation, especially in the priestly class and one must take that into consideration in reading these 5 books. I would say this approach is necessary to any meaningful discussion of the role of men and women in the Bible as a good basis for discussing who we are and ultimately how we relate to each other.<BR/><BR/>That being said I believe in some larger validity to the creation story and Genesis in particular, and yes "feel" the presence of God in there somewhere quite strongly. I think Genesis gives us some sort of answer to who am I and how did I get here (62 years old in a suburb of Minneapolis without a church). BUT I don't believe it literally. I think it is an actual reaction to some sort of spiritual contact between man and God without any other way of understanding it and putting it into words. The best we had as mere mortals but as the Created/the issue, of a true God<BR/><BR/>If we use gender neutral language here we may and probably will miss the point that yes, we are God's creation, but our true knowledge of him is very limited and left up to ourselves we create God in our own image, because we know of no other way to behave, because we are flawed. Men wrote it an thus it is going to be male oriented.<BR/><BR/>So what? Well, this vision does not jibe with the overall impression left with us after studying the New Testament; that what we have ended up with with a religion that has been reinterpreted from Jesus to include agendas that are exactly counter what I believe God had/has in mind for us. Jesus left us with two "commandments"/affirmations one of which is love one another as I have loved you: as you have loved yourself (the parallel transcendence blows me away) i.e., unconditionally and without agenda Flesh of my Flesh Bone of My Bone. <BR/><BR/>"But we will see them through men's eyes, and we will not hear their voices except as transmitted and interpreted by men. How would a woman answer the psalmist's question-or formulate it? How would she describe the relationship of humans to the rest of creation or conceive of the first sin? To ask such questions is to recognize the limits of the Bible as a source for contemporary theological anthropology. Yet it remains indispensable, and is, in my view, the richest resource for Christian theological reflection."<BR/><BR/>Yes, it is necessary to understand this fact, but to carry the message the this is not necessarily what God had in mind, since the source of the message was was man, both sexual and not sexual/being, but self oriented. God's messages are only partially understood through a glass darkly. Espcially when we perceive that message intellectually filtered through self. In our hearts, we "feel" God's presence, we "know" his love. He does not "know" us as male or female but as us/self/him. <BR/><BR/>That's what I think. Let us use the Bible to support that message, and to carry that message.<BR/><BR/>"We cannot know the meaning of our common humanity without taking seriously our individual particularity, and hence diversity. We grasp our common nature through multiple acts of self-transcendence in which we confront one another as other-but in that confrontation recognize the other as "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." I believe she comes to that conclusion because she can read the sexist language but "feels" as I do.No one can speak for another, and male cannot speak for female. But individuals and groups can and must speak about the nature of their fundamental humanity in ways that attempt to include all members of the species. It is not enough to record only my own experience or that of my class or people. All efforts to speak about the human require an attempt to speak globally, to reach beyond individual experience, to incorporate the other into the definition that begins with self."<BR/>"<BR/><BR/>I would caution though, that I think it a dangerous path to "celebrate" our diversity, or if our group "speaks" as males or "females" "advocating" the "the other" should and must agree with; for there resides self. Transcendence only comes through self forgetting.<BR/><BR/>It is highly interesting to me that the "tension" that was sensed between the NSRV and accuracy, which I couldn't adequately explain lead me to Phyliss Bird. Where much of what I feel is written. I truly know I wouldn't have read her of my own volition. There are NO coincidences.<BR/><BR/>Paul aka know as Charles P Dog ( a real Cavalier King Charles Spaniel)<BR/><BR/>ps fwiw my 18 year old daughter gets in arguments with her friends at a Missouri Synod Lutheran schools about whether Charlie will go to heaven with her. I say of course he will, it DOESN'T say he won't in the Bible......Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872097932838677378noreply@blogger.com