3 of the top 5 are women, queens of the biblioblogosphere:

Rod of Alexandria breaks the news this week.  Women have broken through the glass ceiling of the Top 10 Biblioblogs for June 2011.

He notes, "3 of the top 5 are women:"

1. Suzanne McCarthy, Suzanne’s Bookshelf
2. James McGrath, Exploring Our Matrix
3. Joel Watts, Unsettled Christianity
4. April DeConick, The Forbidden Gospels
5. Jane Stranz, Of life, laughter and liturgy

Notice how the 2 men in the mix are wanting to suggest now "How to Determine the Queen and King of the Biblioblogosphere."  Being now under a woman, even only 1, is, presumably, not good enough.  The 1 man makes his suggestion with a picture of the other 1 man:

 

What we the people must notice, with all of the talk and images about king-dom-ination, is how there's been a coup d'état, a revolution, a democratic decision-making reversal of the order of power that has let 1 un-defined and un-official and un-sanctified women in the top 10!

First, I want you to listen again to the rant by blogger and Bible Blogger and woman Amanda Mac.  Then see the Official Response that would exclude some women.  Finally see the injustice of male dominance overcome by people power!

First, her rant:

Once again, a call has gone out encouraging more women to biblioblog.  I think I’m getting a little frustrated by this.  Why?

Because there are female bibliobloggers.  They may be in the minority, but they’re out there.
So why aren’t they on the top 50?  A couple of reasons:

1. The top 50 is not an accurate representation of biblioblog rankings.  If it was, Rachel Held Evans would be # 8 on the list.  Also, Elizabeth Scalia would be on the list (now granted, part of the problem with ranking Elizabeth Scalia’s blog is that it is over at Patheos, and Alexa can’t separate out the different blogs).  Evangel over at First Things would also be on the list, as it has several female bloggers contributing.  Internet Monk also has female contributors and would rank around # 22.  Parchment and Pen would be #6.

I suggest we drop this whole “you have to sign up” excuse.  Is it the Top 50 biblioblogs or not?  If it’s not, it needs to be retitled “Top 50 Biblioblogs of people who volunteered to be on the list.”

2. The majority of the female bibliobloggers that I read wouldn’t make the Top 50 because their Alexa ranking is too low to be counted.  So it’s not that there is only a handful of female biblibloggers out there, it is that there is only a handful of female biblobloggers who generate enough traffic to rank in the top 50.

Solution:  Let’s find ways to send some of these fine ladies some more traffic so that their numbers can rank.

Grrr.  So ends my rant.

Then, the Official Response from the official officials, denying access into the kings' domination of the kingdom of the Top 50 Biblioblogs:

The field of biblical studies does not include everything that is written about the Bible, and in particular does not include theological, spritual, or sermon material, which is why Rachel Held Evans, Evangel, Internet Monk, and Parchment and Pen are not included. If these blogs include incidental material relevant to biblical studies, they may be included under “Related Blogs.”

Finally, the revolution of people power:

10. Rachel Held Evans 

That's right.  The officially-excluded Rachel Held Evans is in the Top 10!   And she's not even agreeing to wear some crown.

Congrats to Suzanne, April, Jane, and Rachel!

SBC Condemns The Declaration of Independence in translation

In an effort to achieve consistency with their condemnation of the NIV 2011, the men of the SBC and of its Committee of Resolutions met late into the evening of July 3rd, 2011.  Just before midnight, in an open meeting before all of the world, the Committee allowed more discussion on the banning of all gender neutralizing translations and paraphrases of Thomas Jefferson's original Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

“This nearly is as big as it gets; next to God's Word, this is as big as it gets,” said Tom Underton of Yougoman Village Baptist Church in Monroe, La., who brought his emergency resolution to the floor after a resolutions committee declined to include it in their report. “This is the word of the Fathers, our Founders. The best-selling translations in the United States and around the world are now gender neutral.”

“As Southern Baptists, I don’t think we have the luxury of not speaking to this important issue either,” Underton said. “People are buying flags and fireworks and these translations unaware of what’s happening. We are the anchor of the patriotic evangelical world.”

The resolution expressed “profound disappointment” with various translators for their “inaccurate translation of Thomas Jefferson's inspired Declaration, which, of course, mentions God and men, all created equal and equally endowed.”

It asked LifeWay Christian Resources, the SBC publishing house, to refuse to sell these translations in its stores and encouraged pastors to make their congregations aware of concerns about them.

“We cannot commend the following to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community,” the resolution concluded.

"The Declaration of Independence was never intended

for kids or
for women, or
for pinko commies or
for Southeast Asians in general or
for "Americans who cuss" even if they're as equal as any other man created or
for dummies of any kind for that matter.  We condemn the following:

--The Declaration of Independence Translated for Kids, 2000:  “We think that all people are created the same and that God wants every one of us to be free and happy.”

--Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s and colleagues’ Declaration of Sentiments, 1848:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;”

--Hồ Chí Minh’s Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, 1945:   “Hỡi đồng bào cả nước, Tất cả mọi người  [each and every one, all people] đều sinh ra có quyền bình đẳng. Tạo hoá cho họ những quyền không ai có thể xâm phạm được;”

--some unknown translator rendering the Declaration of Independence of the USA into Malaysian, 2002:  “Kita berpegang kepada kebenaran yang nyata ini, bahawa semua manusia [each and every one, all humankind] diciptakan sama tarafnya, bahawa mereka dikurniakan oleh Pencipta mereka hak-hak tertentu yang tidak boleh dipisahkan;”

--H. L. Mencken’s “The Declaration of Independence in American,” 1921:  “All we got to say on this proposition is this: first, you and me is as good as anybody else, and maybe a d*mn sight better; second, nobody ain’t got no right to take away none of our rights; third, every man has got a right to live, to come and go as he pleases, and to have a good time however he likes, so long as he don’t interfere with nobody else.”

--The Declaration of Independence for Dummies, Part I, 2003:  “We think it’s pretty obvious that God created every person equal, and he gave each person specific unchanging rights which should never be trampled upon.”

[end quote]"

The Lingamish Blog Was Not Written To You

Lingamish.com wasn’t written to you, but it was written for you. Read it the right way and you’ll hear the voice of Lysistrata, the Nude Goddess.

--from my forthcoming book, The Lingamish Blog Wasn't Written To You

This is just a pre-publication announcement.  I am turning this blog of mine into my book, which I am writing to you.  I AM The Most excited.  The above is just a sentence from this book of mine (a) to tease you into downloading it, (b) to coax you into purchasing it as a pulp version signed by me, and (c) to get you thinking you want to read it, (d) as you like for yourself but really hopefully (e) to get you to "read it the right way."  (The reason this blogpost of mine is so long is to convince you that I really know what I'm talking about.  It'll be a good book, I'm sure.  You know, I'm a Lingamish Blog translator and translator consultant myself.)

For the book, I've selected fifty posts of mine referring to The Lingamish Blog just to offer you this startling thesis:   “The Blog Lingamish wasn't written to you.” 

Just to be clear, Lingamish.com “is a collection of posts, poems, histories, tragedies, blog-post series, cyber-psalms, and more, and if you want to 'apply it to your life' you’ve first got to consider how that particular message was meant to apply to someone else’s life.”  As I already wrote, however, if it wasn't written to you, then “The Blog”Lingamish was written for you.  Oh, I know.  That just makes you want another taste of My book, doesn't it?  Since in my book I do write to you, to tell you about how to read lingamish.com, right? 

Well, okay.  Before I take your questions, here's one more morsel for you:

Lingamish.com isn’t meant to be treated like a bag of “trail mix” where you fish out all the sweet parts that you like and leave the rest. There are treasures in “The Blog” but only if you’re willing to receive the message in the way it was intended.  In the Goddess’s Word we have a treasure of literature unsurpassed in the world. It would be worth reading just for that reason. Have you read the “Post of Cinderella (Dressed in Yella)”?  [For a quick reference to that Lingamish Post, see the link below on that one bad word, the P-word, in the bad-boy quotation. I think it's your question #36. Careful, there may be children listening.]

Cool huh?  Yes, I know. 

Some of you wannabe critics already may have some questions.  So okay, what are your questions?

Really?  So many, so tough, how was I to anticipate all of these?:

1. Why is “The Blog” [Lingamish.com] so fragmented?
2. Where are all the missing posts of Lingamish.com now?
3. Was there humor in every post really? Can Tim Bulkeley find consistent humour there?
4. Why is “The Blog” so old fashioned?
5. Why did it make false prophecies?
6. Why did it shout them?
7. What is the Dynamic Equivalence of “shouting” in Portuguese, in Nyungwe, in Afrikaans?
8. (“BLOGGING IS DEAD”?)
9. What has it become?
10. (It “became the equivalent of shouting
11. across a canyon and waiting for
12. an echo that never
14.  
15. comes.”)
16. (“blogging is”)
17. (“blogging is ....”)
18. (“blogging really is, really, really, really
19. dead”?)
20. Was blogging dead?
21. I went to seminary; doesn't that qualify me to read Lingamish.com?
22. I am a Blog translator consultant; doesn't that count for something?
23. Everything I ever wanted to learn about “The Blog” I learned in Sunday School, right?
24. How come it gives out Lingy Awards but not Alexa rankings?
25. Who are the best and greatest and Top 50 bloggers on “The Blog” this month?
26. How come you don't have to blog on Lingamish.com in every post to be considered a Top 50 LingamishBlogger?
27. Isn't the Hippo symbol politically incorrect when posted in state-run properties in America?
28. Then why all the plastic lawn hippos and the hippo refrigerator magnets and the hippopotamus bumperstickers?
29. Is it okay to study “The Blog” as literature but not to try to hear therein the naked voice of Lysistrata?
30.  
31. Really, where did all those missing posts go?  How can we be sure what the original said?
33. Was the Authoress, with her foreknowledge, planning a more seemless text? 
34. Hey now--Wasn't the real author really a man, a male?
35. Didn't he confess to being feminist-phobic?
36. (“I’m not a feminist. In fact, feminists scare the poop out of me.” [sic] ?)
37. Isn't he one of the guys in that all Boy's Club:  the Better Bibles Blog?
38. So why are you saying he is she-inspired and writes the whispers of the voice of the Goddess Lysistrata?

Whew.  Such good questions from you all to me.  The only answer I think I should give you at this point is this:  Read my book.  It is written, by me, for you and also to you.  (And then maybe you'll get to reading Lingamish.com some too, not to you, just just for you.)  Oh, and quit that complaining about me blogging more.

The Gender of the Biblioblogger Count

This quick post is just an update of "The Gender of Blogger Clout."

3 things:

1. A comparison of woman : male ratios in the top OpEd journals with the woman : male ratios in the top Biblioblogs.

theopedproject.org VS, biblioblogtop50.wordpress.com

2.  A couple of related posts and comments.

There's a new comment at the post where, as Rod puts it, "April DeConick was labelled a man-hating angry feminist as some of us just dismissed all too easy her request to even change how the stats take place (another day, another time)."  The commenter self-identifies as a woman by name and says:

I don't know about the Alexa ratings, but for those lists that exist because someone nominates a blog or requests that their own blog be listed-- if this is being perceived as a "boys club" (whether accurately or otherwise), some women may simply not be trying, or may not be interested in trying, to get in. Why try if the deck is already stacked against you? (Even if that's just a perception, it could be affecting the ratings.)

There's a new post at The Biblioblog Top 50 blog.  We can imagine, from the "us"-vs.-"them" and the "we"-vs.-"you" language, that the writer of the post is a man (and not one of those women bloggers of the Bible).  He is ostensibly speaking on behalf of the top men blogging the Bible.  He's taking a stab at humor, is saying "Now accepting women!" and is playing on "April" DeConick's name.  His final sentences are as follows:

We will also oppose those forces of systemic gender inequality that exist to marginalize (but not in a victimy way, ok, April) women in academia and in academic biblical studies. In solidarity with all those who are othered by the hegemonic centre, we call on all bibliobloggers to discontinue blogging about those institutions which defend the status quo, such as the Bible, the political system, the churches, biblical studies, and the Biblical Archaeology Review - until such time as the system crumbles and falls! Ok?

So is the deck stacked against women who are bibliobloggers?  Who is really interested in joining this Top Club now?  Are "we" men now joining "women in academia and in academic biblical studies" in opposing "systemic gender inequality"?  Is our equal strategy really "to discontinue blogging about" any given or particular topic?  Is that what this man thinks women want?  Yes, I know.  Get serious now.  This guy (who doesn't need to identify his sex or even to use his name) is just funny and really only just wants a laugh.  So lighten up.  Ok?


3.  A comment on the title of this post.

The title of my posts can also be humorous.  I'm following Anne Carson's lead here; she writes that insightful and funny essay, "The Gender of Sound."  She has not, it seems, done anything to discontinue writing "about those institutions which defend the status quo."  She does, in fact, write about the bible, the political system, and translator bias, and gender bias, and Aristotle, and so on and so forth.

Teenspeak, genderspeak, translationspeak

ht Language Log by Zwicky Arnold

Facebook funnies: feminist rhetorical translating

Given what Cheryl Glenn said (and just for grins), I posted this as my status on Facebook this morning:

I need some help from you Latin scholars:  What's Quintilian mean when he quotes Cicero saying, 'uirum bonum dicendi peritum'"

Here's some replies >> so far (and feel free to add your own, here or there):

>>  I think that means, "Your lilly is crooked."   


>>   i`m out...somthing about bono  

>>   he's saying -"who left the toilet seat up - again?"

[via FB email from one of my Italian friends who's not so sure of her English:]  >>  how are you doing? The phrase you're looking for is taken by the XII book of the "Oratoria" by Quintilian. Precisely, the quote is included in this passage "Sit ergo nobis orator quem constituimus is qui a M. Catone finitur VIR BONUS DICENDI PERITUS, verum, id quod et ille posuit prius et ipsa natura potius ac maius est, utique vir bonus: id non eo tantum quod, si vis illa dicendi malitiam instruxerit, nihil sit publicis privatisque rebus perniciosius eloquentia, nosque ipsi, qui pro virili parte conferre aliquid ad facultatem dicendi conati sumus, pessime mereamur de rebus humanis si latroni comparamus haec arma, non militi."

I can try to traslate it in English but I'm not sure of the result. 

It should sound something like: "According to the definition of Marco Porcio Catone the orator I want to train should be a RIGHT MAN SKILLED IN ORATORY (public speaking)" The phrase you wrote on facebook were plural "VIRUM BONI DICENDI PERITI" and obviously the meaning is the same.

Now, go back and re-read and notice (if you didn't the first time) all the male-gendered defaults in the rhetoric and its translations.

trans-apparent HIM

Below I'm demonstrating the much-taken "approach" - but just one approach taken - in order to translate gender.

Suzanne explains that this all-too-common "approach is to infer that grammatical gender reflects an underlying gender which is could be ontological, representative or metaphorical, but, which, in any case, ought to be translated." She illustrates how "using a gendered pronoun [in English translation] can alter the literal meaning of a [Greek] clause, as it appears to do in John 1:3 [where 'the word', the actual antecedent to the English pronoun, is not masculine in any way except by Greek grammatical gender].

'All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.'"

I've added the italics to make clear the correspondences. As we all know, to make "the word" masculine in English (as with the pronoun "him") is very strange. (For background, Suzanne's conveniently posted, The Intrusive Pronoun: An Index.)

But let's give most English Bible translators a break. They commonly require absolute "faithfulness" to the original text. (Never mind that they require a merely apparent faithfulness to the Greek. Never mind their faux faithfulness. Never mind their faithfulness to gender in grammar alone - masculine grammatical gender - that defies ontology, representation, and metaphor. Never mind that theirs is a faithfulness in translation that does not allow the writer, John, wordplay later in his text -- as in John 1 verse 14 here, in which the writer gives "the word" its "flesh," which is, of course, female flesh in John's Greek, grammar femaleness that is: σὰρξ, "the masculine word became feminine flesh; ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο." Never mind the wordplay.)

Below my illustration of this typical but absolutely "faithful" approach is a demonstration by the translation of Mark 4:13-20. This is one passage that Bible translators must get absolutely right. After all, it is the absolutely exact explanation of a wordplayful parable of the absolute Teacher. If our translation falls by the wayside, then we absolutely miss "him the word" indeed.

Please note that I'm also adding another absolute "faithfulness" in the common approach to translation of the Greek: transliteration of the words. Therefore: I give here not only (A) a very faithful "translation" of the masculine gender of the pronoun but I also provide (B) a very very faithful "translation" of the sounds of Greek using TRANSLITERATION OF GREEK SOUNDS IN CAPITAL ENGLISH LETTERS [with translator explanations in brackets]. The reader, then, gets (C) absolutely faithful "transparency" to the Greek language of Mark. The translation is a faithful (A) trans-lation of the Greek male pronoun; a fixed (B) trans-literation of the Greek male sounds; and the trans-apparent rigidly Greek language of JE-SUS.

(We'll just ignore the fact that Mark does not so faithfully "translate" or "transcribe" the grammatical gender of pronouns and the true sounds of the speaker's spoken Hebrew Aramaic. I boast here: "I am doing a better job in translation of Mark's Greek than Mark does in translation of the Jewish Joshua's Aramaic"! Please read the sarcasm here. Please know that I'm not disrespecting "THE WORD" but rather am poking fun at TECHNICAL BIBLE "TRANS-LATION" APPROACHES. Here goes.)

-------

¹³And HE [implied pronoun] said TO HIM AND TO HIM [figuratively, "to them"],

Do YOU MEN have no IDEA [from "eido"] what the meaning is of this PARA-BOWLED story [technically = "parable" with one and only one main meaning]?

And how then will YOU MEN GYKNOW [from "knowledge"=gnosko] all PARA-BLEs?

¹⁴ The SPERMER [lit. "sower of seed"] SPERMS the LOGOS [lit. "word"].

¹⁵And in the first place:

HE AND HE [fig. "they"] are the PARA-ODOS [in contrast to "Exodos"; lit. "those alongside the way"], where the LOGOS is SPERMED;

but when THESE MEN have ACOUSTICALLY RECEIVED [lit. "hear"; fig. "get it in the ear"],

then SATAN [note: "we all know who HE is"] comes EU-THEOS [rhymes in Greek with 'good god'; lit. "immediately"],

and HE ERECTS [lit. "lifts up"] the LOGOS that was SPERMED in the KARDIA [fig. "hearts"] of HIM AND HIM.

¹⁶And in the second place:

HE AND HE [fig. "they"] are the EPI-PETER [lit. "on the rock"] SPERMED; who, when HE and HE have ACOUSTICALLY RECEIVED the LOGOS, receive HIM EU-THEOS with CHARA [lit. "joy"];

¹⁷And HE AND HE [fig. "they"] are the possessed by a root in HIMSELF AND HIMSELF,

and HE AND HE [fig. "they"] so endures but for a PROS--> KAIROS [fig. "a time"]:

afterward, when affliction or persecution has that GENESIS of HIM AND HIM [fig. "them"] for the sake of the LOGOS,

then EU-THEOS immediately HE AND HE [fig. "they"] are SKANDALIZED.

¹⁸And in the third place:

HE AND HE [fig. "they"] are SPERMED among thorns; such ACOUSTICALLY RECEIVE the LOGOS,

¹⁹And the cares of this AGE [αἰῶνος], and the deceitfulness of riches, and the EPI-THUMOS [lit. "desires on" fig "lusts"] of other things together enter in, choke the LOGOS, and have unfruitful GENESIS.

²⁰And in the fourth place:

HE AND HE [fig. "they"] are SPERMED on good GYNESIS GYN GEN [fig. "ground" as in "geo" graphy and "geo" "LOGY"];

such as ACOUSTICALLY RECEIVE the LOGOS, and receive [implied Greek "HIM" grammatically - not "it"], and PARA-bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.

------

Hmmm. Maybe Μάρκος and יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎, (Mark and Joshua, aka Jesus) were taking an-Other approach to translating gendered pronouns and gendered sounds and interlated language transparencies.

Aristotle tweets

Sometimes I wonder whether blogging wouldn't have been good for Aristotle. I wonder that almost the way Larry Norman used to wonder, "If people then could live today. . . , would Aristotle be an acid head?" Don't we have to have hope for people? Maybe, women would start commenting on his blog. Maybe he'd go to barbarians (such as my blogger friend Polycarp) for crucial tips. Perhaps he'd watch young people texting and read posts (like T.C. Robinson's on tweeting and blogging at the same time while IMing Nathan Stitt) and would feel inclined to write more about the nature of rhetoric. Do you think he'd fall into tweeting himself, trying to keep up with the late and great Hesiod, Euripides, Philip Roth, and John Updike? And if he did read something mis-attributed to him (something like "Suffering becomes beautiful when anyone bears great calamities with cheerfulness, not through insensibility but through greatness of mind"), do you think he'd lurk on wikiquote.org to see if anyone catches it? Would he google his own name at the complete list of Biblioblogs? Or at femininsting.com? All in all, I think, blogging's a good thing, which is why I'm wondering about Aristotle and blogging.

Pheminist Phooh

If the Christian bible writer Paul can dump his Star of David like far-flung doggy doo doo, then a "good" biblioblogger ought at least to be able to go beyond the concerns of gender and race and class. Right? "Amen and aMen," so say the really Big BiblioBloggers.

(But more on all that in a moment. First this:

>Never mind that this Humble Little guy named שָׁאוּל and also called Παῦλος never ever ever divorces his Joshua aka "Jesus" from his Jewishness.

>Never mind that this blogger is ever concerned with how this ever Jewish rabbi is always concerned with gender, race, and class.

>Never mind that Paul is writing "Christian politically incorrect" words like σκύβαλα - which another Joshua aka "Jesus" uses first to translate some politically incorrect Hebrew, all of which gets dumped from the bible as the unwise "Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach" especially Chapter 27, Verse 4, in which puppy pooh remains for humans even after the canonical siftings.

>Never mind that this blogger's blog has a "Christian politically incorrect" middle name, "feminist" - which one must accurately point out is purposefully left out of all the Bible texts, especially those few "respectable" texts that "include" so-called "non-feminist alterity.")

Now, back to the point. The point is that there is a problem with "feminist" blogging in the biblioblogosphere. (And let's not mark the biblioblogosphere with maleness -- can't we all just get beyond, like God is?)

The problem was a serious problem of conviviality back in 2007 at SBL.

It is a problem now. One big problem we can all sympathize with - given our common desire for a post-sexist, post-racial, post-classist society - is that messengers (such as the word feminism) tend to get shot in church on a Sunday morning. In other words, we all tend to forget that sexism runs deep in the dark places, our own dark places, our own blogosphere, where you can't even see your compass or your mirror as if you're willing there to look at a compass or in a mirror at all.

The Biggest problem now, however, seems to be that the sure fact that little bloggers like me just really might "contribute to creating an environment in which Bible readers who do not share [my so-called] passionately chosen brand of feminism will [therefore,] feel free to ignore and even disrespect [my] particular alterity."

Alas! I myself have other concerns. Alas!

Alas! My associations with Jane Stranz and her "living, laughing, liturgical" brand of feminism have become public. Hence, I'm getting all these Pheminist Phoohy blogger awards lately. And, after reading each of Aristotle's terribly numerous works on Animals, I thought I was only working to rid the world of sexism among hippos. (Careful Suzanne, Jane just might also bring down your now-very-well-read Bookshelf.)


Alas! I haven't even come close to earning enough cash for my very own "Lingamish franchise." (I think I only get paid when David the Hippo Ker visits my blog, and there's only $6.66 in the bank now.)


Alas! John F. Hobbins keeps picking on me at James R. Getz Jr.'s Carnival. And James won't let Julia M. O'Brien sit between us. The only help he offers is "good grammar" and the imperative "don't panic!"


Alas! The Month of May made me put on my thinking cap for #1 Top Biblioblogger Dr. Jim "why does gender matter?" West, who deserves congratulations for being crowned Mr. March and Mr. April and Mr. May.

---

Coda

Lest my babbling above is not clear, I'm looking for the smile on your face. I count you all as my friends. What you say here in comments and in posts at your own blogs constantly challenges and amazes and encourages me. I'm okay when people like Polycarp pick on me for my Ph.D., a harassment which he rationalized in vain by claiming, once upon a time, [quote], "Since J.K. Gayle has stopped blogging, I have been trying to find a balance to my acknowledged masculine viewpoint which would challenge me to look through another’s eyes." I am quite alright with people like Tonya and Daniel at their Hebrew and Greek Reader looking for things that shouldn't be there, and when people like N.T. Wrong, who never really was, aren't there any more but still come around for conversation as if critical theory and the Enlightenment weren't dead. I love it when people like Jared Calaway at his Antiquitopia can advise us: "be creative, stick your head out and see what people are doing in other fields."

My sadness is that the "feminist" label in some contexts works as the "Bible" label works in others. My affinity with feminists is more profound perhaps than mine with bible bloggers because feminists tend more generally to be much more inclusive (both personally and methodologically). The awards above tend, nonetheless, to cause us blogging against sexism to be suspicious of the power afforded the many male-dominant voices. We see how many are silenced by phallogocentric interpretations and translations and bloggings of "the Bible."

My hope is that we all can listen rhetorically, translatively, feministically, biblically, playfully. Not just listening to refute but rather listening to render what the Other is saying - and thereby finding ourselves, our bodies, repositioned however differently. Otherwise, it just sounds like more Phe-men-ist Phooh and biblical Boo!

(ps:
My post title comes from the effort of one of my friends to translate Winnie the Pooh books by A. A. Milne from English into another of her languages. She rightly noted that other translators had neglected the play in the feminine name Winnie for the male bear - even though everyone knows that the author only intended originally to name his character after Winnipeg, a real bear in the London zoo. Winnie, of course, as the feminine diminutive of Winifred also plays on Whinny [as in the Whinny womanly Fred]. And now not a few writers have taken Pooh to mean what it sounds like. Thus, Frederick Crews authors The Pooh Perplex, which we all say aloud and laugh. [Didn't even chuckle? Well, say The Pooper Plex for an academic work.] This authorizes Benjamin Hoff, as if aspiring to the crap of the Ivory Tow-er, to write The Tao of Pooh. And not to be outdone, Crews goes beyond that stuff with Postmodern Pooh. The last book mentioned includes several women writers, and many feminists, not the least of which is one Ms Sisera Cathetera, whose contribution is the punny chapter, "Just Lack A Woman." I think we get the point. If we're smiling we do. Please feel free to smile, to ignore, or even to disrespect.)

Dr. Jim West's "even higher comedy"

"I think that Greg's Post was oddly funny. I think it was oddly funny in the way that it was high comedy. I think comedy has to come from an oddly funny place if it's high comedy."

Now I'm being just as silly,

but doesn't Dr. Jim West sound like Alicia Silverstone speaking plainly, more or less:

"I think that Clueless was very deep. I think it was deep in the way that it was very light. I think lightness has to come from a very deep place if it's true lightness."

?

Sex and Wordplay and Sexism

First, from Rhosa's rhetorical blogora blog, a playful post of sex and religion:

this just in (ha ha):

oooh, baby do you know what that's worth??
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=7686
ha ha ha ha h(e)aven is a place on earth
("some poles have been surprised....")

but willie get tenure for his book?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jPb6orr8TUqqiIof81VUGb...
betty won't.

and is the pope infallible? never mind on that one.
none of us is, y'all.

Second, searching into or to find my blog, The WOMBman's Bible, someone has googled this:

"word for playful in greek"

which makes me wonder why there I'd skipped over this:

"ἐγένετο δὲ πολυχρόνιος ἐκεῖ παρακύψας δὲ Αβιμελεχ ὁ βασιλεὺς Γεραρων διὰ τῆς θυρίδος εἶδεν τὸν Ισαακ παίζοντα μετὰ Ρεβεκκας τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ

which is the playful Greek wording for this:

וַיְהִי כִּי אָֽרְכוּ־לֹו שָׁם הַיָּמִים וַיַּשְׁקֵף אֲבִימֶלֶךְ מֶלֶךְ פְּלִשְׁתִּים בְּעַד הַֽחַלֹּון וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה יִצְחָק מְצַחֵק אֵת רִבְקָה אִשְׁתֹּֽו׃

which is also known as Genesis 26:8 -- translated in the King James Bible as this:

"And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac [was] sporting with Rebekah his wife."

The playful word in Greek is παίζοντα [paizonta] which is "sporting" enough - and is sexual too, given the reaction of Abimelech the king towards two supposedly platonic alleged siblings, who were indeed engaged in play, perhaps foreplay.

That makes us think of Gorgias and his rhetorical praise of Helen. But he's not involved in foreplay, because he's investigating the alleged sexism, the supposed rape of Helen by the Trojan man. Why else would she abandon the men of Greece, he asks. Remember, Bettany Hughes reminds:

When, in Ancient Greece, the rhetorician Gorgias stood up and delivered his 'Encomium of Helen' (a defence of Helen of Troy's indefensible character) - this was a great joke. How can you laud the most sluttish femme fatale of all time? But the rhetoric also got people thinking - maybe, just maybe the skilled speaker had a point.

So Gorgias isn't engaging in foreplay the way the Jewish translators of their own histories translate that bit of history of Isaac [Ha! Laughter!]. Gorgias is playing with sexuality and with sexism; but his play comes at the very end, like the punchline to his joke:

ἐβουλήθην γράψαι τὸν λόγον Ἑλένης μὲν ἐγκώμιον, ἐμὸν δὲ παίγνιον.

Notice the final Greek word in Brian Donovan's translation:

I wanted to write the discourse, Helen's encomium and my plaything.

("plaything" or sport or παίγνιον /paignion/.)

Which makes us wonder if Gorgias was trying to get his contemporary readers, thinking about Helen, also to remember the sexism in Homer. Remember? Yes, I'm thinking with you now about "The Homeric Hymn to Demeter."

It begins:

I sing of the revered goddess, rich-haired Demeter,
and her slim-ankled daughter, whom Hades snatched
(far-seeing, thundering Zeus gave her away)
while she and Ocean's deep-breasted daughters played,
far from golden blade Demeter, who bears shining fruit.
She picked lush meadow flowers: roses, crocuses,
lovely violets, irises, hyacinths--and narcissus
Gaia grew as a lure for the blossoming girl,
following Zeus' bidding, to please Lord of the Dead.

You may recognize this as Diane J. Rayor's wonderful translating. And you may remember other translations -- because there have been many -- that have Hades raping the girl instead of merely "snatching" her -- as Rayor renders it.

"In modern usage the word rape emphasizes sexual consummation," a certain 'consume-a-shun', "which is uncertain in this case." This is Helene P. Foley's commentary on her own translating, which says the daughter of Demeter is one "whom Aidoneus seized."

Both Rayor and Foley prefer to leave a little play in the English because of the wordplay in the Homeric Greek. Neither of these translators rapes their reader with a certain anything.

And regardless of whether "rape" or "snatch" or "seize" by "Hades" or [his more Greek sounding name] "Aidoneus" - there is something common for all the many English translators of this Greek text. They all render what the little girl is doing, when interrupted, as "play."

Of course, around all the sex and horrible sexism, that word for play and playful in Greek here in this Hymn is παίζουσαν [paizousan]. And so the sporting continues, sometimes translationally, sometimes sexually, but sometimes as the horrible force of sexism.