No Wife In Eden
What is the essence of the human creature? Gender-defined or not?
II. The translator chooses, for the translator's purposes.
III. Are we, millennia later, allowed to Vet? Many institutions say, no. We have tradition, we imposed infallibility, we don't care what the original error might have been. Wife, dammit, Wife!
I. Wife. There are ambiguities about the nature of the relationship of the man and the woman in Creation are resolved by Translators for their own purposes. The essence of the human creature may well not be the relation of property-ownership, wife to the owner man. Is that so?
Background. See transliteration sites and analysis of many elements of the old Creation Story, at http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#!/2008/08/creation-by-transliteration-roots-old.html. For us, the best remains http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm for word-for-word identification; and http://www.mechanical-translation.org/ for overall narrative (loses on ease of seeing exactly which word form is translated as what, I think)
- Tools for exploring old texts, as an amateur. Words can be translated by a translator who is interested in pushing an emerging institutional dogma, and not the original meaning. This roots much of modern religion's errata. But it is understandable.
- Early translators from early texts, like Jerome, cannot be faulted for their mindset. They are Men of their Times. They had a mission: forge a unified dogma so this version of the ambiguities will prevail, over others, regardless of merit. They do what their Times require. To an institutional need, they respond with what the institution wanted.
II. Wife. Genesis suddenly refers to the woman, in translation as Wife.
What? See details at http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#!/2008/08/creation-by-transliteration-roots-old.html. Why suddenly insert "wife" -- that culturally loaded term. It carries with it contracts, property allocations, rights, inheritance, domination, children of the Wife as the Husband's property. If there is an ambiguity in the word translated early on as "Wife", the Translator decides. That is that. That is the Vulgate. Words are put into Latin that may not express at all the ambiguity of the original language(s). But argue that the Translator is Inspired, Divinely Ordained, and all discussion is supposed to stop.
Wife. Why put that in, as a hypothetical, where the original word is merely "woman."
Woman, man, each is an autonomous, separate being. It takes "wife" to make her property and dependent. Reproduction? As a moral obligation, or merely information in Creation as to what activities are functional, to produce; and which are dysfunctional, do not produce but otherwise not a problem. ut only by the variation in genitalia in order to reproduce, if they choose to do so (herbal abortifacients are natural, and clearly part of Creation -- Eve did obvious family planning).
There were indeed many choices of meanings among many alternatives, where a language as written (say, Paleo-Hebrew) had no vowels, for example, and the translator chooses.
Why do churches not tell us that, that their translations and dogma are based on a human choice among unknowns in an ambiguous set of original sources.
II. Wife. Test the theory.
Is the word is the choice of the Translator for the Translator's own agenda, mindset, cultural bias, not what the word may have meant.
But if the Translator is to be controlling in a later era with access to far more than he had, in text criticism, history, even "neutrality," is the fact there is a long tradition of acceptance enough to keep people from vetting? Tradition can be based on jello. Religious texts are old, obviously, original tablets or stones are in archaic forms, who knows, really, what was meant. Paleo-Hebrew? What? Tell us.
Was there no husband or wife in or after Eden, just a man and a woman; horrors having extramarital sex; until, perhaps, culture imposed a system and provided, through religion, that it was ordained by the deity. That, because the woman is vulnerable when lumbering pregnant, that the one not so vulnerable had to be superior. Nuts.
III. This requires analysis of when patriarchy took over. Will we ever know, except by reference back to beloved Eden, where the command was clearly matriarchal: man leaves and moves in with the woman. Disobedience and patriarchy instead ensued.
Is that possible? Or was patriarchy ordained by the deity/deities in retrospect because that's the way it eventually happened, given the vulnerabilities of pregnant ladies. How could they fight back?
Also, nuts. See kngdv, the handy phrase-word ommitted and mistranslated through the ages, and deriving directly from texts we have of the words from Creation. That's a stretch in itself. If you are a Bible-devotee, interested in sources and not cultual overlay., even the Paleo-Hebrew is eons away from original events. Inspriation? Some believe that, some not.
If the validity of patriarchy, in religions terms, cannot be proven at least by texts, why resolve the issue in favor of it. Ask not. There is clearly no marriage in Eden, however. How does a ancient patriarchical-fostering property exchange, needed for "marriage," compare with our view of the Institution today: the emotional lifetime commitment we "expect. When was there an actual ceremony or property exchange to cement in place in the new patriarchy as it evolved.
Jerome, bless his ideological heart in putting in the Latin "uxor" root, for man or woman left to themselves, was wrong, wrong, wrong. There are several sites that, used in tandem, produce the same result. See Fn 1 for that list. This one, however, puts it all in one place: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/gen003.htm. Find for yourself in one place, a click away from going deeper, these concepts:
A. Gender, Individuality and Role in the Old Testament.
Gender implications impact on the mainstream Christian institutional views of a) the nature of God, b) doctrines including the Trinity, and c) is there revelation outside, before and after, the canon, the established "Bible."
Questioning those basics arise whenever there is vetting of old texts, against later dogma. Even radio talk show people, Rush and the Machonots, fear the idea of women weaseling out of the inferior role.
Questioning arises when new religious branches emerge with differing viewpoints -- including Mormonism. The vetting and those newer branches may come to different conclusions as to gender and its place, the relationship of deity to human. Any opposition to established creeds becomes intense, however, where authority is taught as infallible, even if demonstrably flawed at its root.
See a discussion of some of those other branch views at http://www.christiancentury.org/search/apachesolr_search/romney%20effect . With exclusive gender roles well established, any second look is seen as almost heretical, see discussions of whether it makes a difference what gender J was -- http://motherfather.digress.it/5-3-the-nature-of-christ-as-a-man/
A.1 The Deity. Comment, then move on to the Humans.
Many sites address the theological problems with ascribing a gender to the singular deity of western tradition, see, for example, http://motherfather.digress.it/5-2-the-%E2%80%9Cgender%E2%80%9D-of-yahweh/. The focus of "one god" appears to be on the deith's indivisibility, the covenant (not parental) relationship, not one or other sex or doing this act or that one, as a parent with a gender would do. "Father" -- emerges much later, with the patriarchy. Even in Hosea, says the motherfather site, the "father" element of the deity relates to the act of saving the people, not "begetting." Or "redemption".
And, there remain elements of multiples -- both, and. Creating remains essentially female. Is that so? For a Mormon view of the deity-human relationship, see the Christian Century article, beyond the scope here. Read the site at http://motherfather.digress.it/ for further ideas on how we got to the male tilt.
Names of the deity, and the roles, are presented differently in Genesis - leading many to conclude that there were several sources then combined to make up the Old Testament, see J, E, D, and P sources, here using Wikipedia because the other form criticism sites seem to be fostering a particular Evangelical, or Catholic, or Christian, view, and we are more interested in history and archeology, not supporting any ideology, so see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
as a start. Can we trust non-sectarians to weed out dogma? Not sure. The other sites, however, are clearly labeled as to interest.
Did Jerome sort it out? No. Again, just go to Wikipedia for grounding if this is new to you, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate, We do not want a Roman Catholic or Evangelical or other sectarian encyclopedia for our purposes.
Jerome was not charged with a neutral translation, with all his knowledge and scholarship; instead he was forging an ideology, and that he did. See his view of the woman, for example, at http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/view/sidebar#!/2010/01/jeromes-ezer-kenegdo-kngdv-latin.html. That kngdv bit is distorted or omitted.
A.3 The deity: watch the transformation with ideology and writer
Hebrew. Elohim. As to the deity, the Hebrew itself is clear that the "Creator" Deity is pronounced Elohim, http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf.
English does not permit an "it" to be a god or goddess and we only permit one or the other, so this Elohim is given a male pronoun, "he". Earth is feminine, the sun is masculine, etc. Jerome uses "God" for Creator Elohim all the way through all the creating, to Genesis 2:4. Just the one word, "God", for Elohim. http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm.
- Hebrew Jahweh Elohim. Then, suddenly, in Genesis 2:4, the Hebrew backtracks from one creator, Elohim, and there are two words designating the deity and combining funcitons. There, two words are suddenly used, JHWH, Jahweh, as well as Elohim. Jahweh Elohim.
- Jerome calls that Dominus Deus. A double masculine.
- Who was the Hebrew who changed the name to a double to begin with.
- Regardless of the identity of the first amender, Jerome jump-starts the masculination by translating Jahweh Elohim as Lord God. See in Genesis 2:4, it is now the "Lord God" -- the Dominus Deus -- who created the heavens and the earth, not the "Elohim" who really did all that creating.
The morph of the deity from above-gender, to male: Jerome suddenly takes JHWH Elohim and translates it at Lord God, Dominus Deus. Can you imagine "Lady Goddess" from Jerome's pen for Lord God? Of course not. The gender is etched in stone. See Jerome's Dominus Deus at http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C002.htm#V22.
And, etched in the Sistine Chapel: God dividing night from day.
And the human created becomes the hominem, the "man" -- as opposed, supposedly -- to a woman who was not even thought of yet. But
A.4 The woman. Enter, Chewy. Check the sources, the original texts, written forms.
(1) ChVH -- Eve - Chue Chewy! Genesis 3:20
(2) Strong's 2332 - EVE - lifegiver http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=Eve
Causatively from Chavvah, Eve
Strong's has its limitations, see http://www.mechanical-translation.org/1-strongs.html
(3) Result of search for "Eve":
2332 Chavvah khav-vaw' causatively from 2331; life-giver; Chavvah (or Eve), the first woman:--Eve.
Result of search for "2331":
262 'achvah akh-vaw' from 2331 (in the sense of 2324); an utterance:-- declaration.
2324 chava' khav-aw' (Aramaic) corresponding to 2331; to show:--shew.
2331 chavah khaw-vah' a primitive root; (Compare 2324, 2421); properly, to live; by implication (intensively) to declare or show:--show.
2332 Chavvah khav-vaw' causatively from 2331; life-giver; Chavvah (or Eve), the first woman:--Eve.
2421 chayah khaw-yaw' a primitive root (Compare 2331, 2421); to live, whether literally or figuratively; causatively, to revive:--keep (leave, make) alive, X certainly, give (promise) life, (let, suffer to) live, nourish up, preserve (alive), quicken, recover, repair, restore (to life), revive, (X God) save (alive, life, lives), X surely, be whole. 20 wayyiqərā’ hā’āḏām šēm ’išətwō ḥaûâ kî hiw’ hāyəṯâ ’ēm kāl-ḥāy:
20 וַיִּקְרָ֧א הָֽאָדָ֛ם שֵׁ֥ם אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ חַוָּ֑ה כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כָּל־חָֽי׃
So, set the gender of the deity aside for now, and look at ambiguities.
(3) See what we mean about ambiguities, choices?
Suddenly all becomes clear. Or does it? Our "theologians" are in Oz, making up narratives from behind the curtains.
Genesis, 2:22 ff, http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf go. Characters 1,2,3,4. 1. Yahweh Elohim. The Deity. 2. e Adm. The human. From the human was made 3. e Ashe, the Woman, leaving 4. m Aish, the Man.
A.5. What was the first "marriage" with wife and husband?
What was the first mating, woman and man. What is the difference, and what is the evidence that a first "mating" was a "marriage."
We use the same basic sites, see FN 1, here starting with Strong's lexicon, the one where Hebrew words are actually numbered, and each use in the Old Testament tracked with its meaning; or the Greek in the New Testament, and it tracked as well.
A. 6/ These words seem to be important: Go back to original languages.
First, the spellings cannot accurately lead to accurate pronunciations, because nobody knows how the most ancient Hebrew (Paleo) was pronounced.
There were no vowels -- those have to be supplied by scholars and can we trust them to choose a,e,i,o,u,y, in the right places, or do they supply a,e,i,o,u,y, for a meaning that fits their ideologies?). We are not looking at the Greek and the and New Testaments here.
Tracking word meanings leads the joy of finding there was no marriage in Eden at all -- Jerome's pet use of "uxor" root words notwithstanding. Having checked out his use of "wife" and finding only free-standing woman, a concept alien to English, see http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#!/2012/01/ambiguity-hymnal-in-praise-of-oldest.html
Here we check out Jerome's use of "husband" in translation to the Latin. What is the Hebrew fore Husband and does it appear in the Hebrew text? If he is a husband, does he as husband have "dominion"? What if he is not husband? What is that, dominion over, as in rulers like King Tut; or dominion in, in the sense of a preoccupation, can't help lovin' that man of mine, see discussion of who has jurisdiction to decide moral issues within oneself, http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/#!/2012/02/contraception-dissing-women-she-is-as.html.
- As background, note clues as to the role of the female in creation, the literal translations of creation; and various built-in ambiguities:
- "These are the births of the heavens and of the earth," Genesis 2:4, Young's Literal. Enter the gents: the word for birthing becomes merely "generations" instead of generating. But in scripture4all, it is merely geneological annals. Round we go. Genesis 2:4. Ale thulduth.
- The garden of Eden itself is female, Genesis 2:15,
- Rivers are male,
- As to trees, the tree of the lives is sited at the center of the garden, but the tree of knowledge is not sited anywhere at all, so who is to know how to avoid it? Genesis 2:9. And that is the one that the lady indeed ate of, after being beguiled, http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf,
- And the angel with the flaming sword is to guard the Tree of the Lives after the Fall. But there was never a prohibition as to that, and that angel, the guardian, is female. 3:24. Interesting. Female as guarding life. See gender of angels. End of discussion on abortion and contraception? But what is the significance of any gender-pronoun, see FN 6, at http://motherfather.digress.it/5-2-the-%E2%80%9Cgender%E2%80%9D-of-yahweh/
- But Eve ate of the tree of knowledge, not the tree of the lives. This thing makes no sense.
- Watch the genders, the characters. Yahweh Elohim, the eadm, the human; then after division we have Ashe the woman and Aish the man. Eadm had no clear gender at all.
- Yahweh Elohim - deity, no gender
- The human eadm. "and he is building Yahweh Elohim the angular organ he took from
- the human (eadm)
- The woman (eashe) and
- he (ostensibly Yahweh has been given a gender?) is bringing her to the human (eadm) and he is saying (who is saying: Eadm or Yahweh?)
- Anomalies. Use of one gender's pronoun with a noun of a different gender is not unusual, and may show reverence toward a significant object or event, see FN 6 at http://motherfather.digress.it/5-2-the-%E2%80%9Cgender%E2%80%9D-of-yahweh/
- the human (eadm) this one the once bone from bones of me and flesh from flesh of me to this one (still could be either one)
- he shall be called woman ( e ashe)
- He shall be called woman ashe? What then is left of the eadm, the human
- and here is the new one: the "man" for the first time, not just the human eadm,
- m Aish. that from man (m aish) she was taken this one
Onwards, through the fog. Our religions and "inspirations" are built on jello. FN 1
Roles in creation. There was either
a) XX-Xy bound in one, a hermaphrodite; later divided into XX and Xy, the y still being a diminutive element, far smaller, and even diminishing with time; or
b) XX, from which, after she was put asleep, Xy was formed ; and the genders really didn't matter; or
c)Xy as the first being, which is ridiculous because the y is so distorted and tiny, it couldn't be divided and produce an XX
Conclusion: XXXY divided into XX and Xy , with the y still incomplete, inadequate, searching, and the XX, stronger, prevailing, but vulnerable in pregnancy that gave the inconsequential y an in. Theologians, geneticists, start your engines.
- In either case, what is the event that happens between references to woman who becomes wife; instead of woman and mate; and man who becomes husband, instead of man and mate. Is there a ceremony, an act, a significance to the use of "husband" instead of mate, or do we really just have Mate 1 and Mate 2, that somebody later just couldn't stand. Is there any text evidence that marriage is ordained, blessed, sacred, etc. So far, we find nothing of the kind. It is all institutional and cultural, adding a god idea to make it stick.
A commitment of mate or husband to protect the one in vulnerability, pregnant mate or wife, and our idea that he "rules over" her -- does that fail, given the transliteration of the words to "rule in" in the sense of being a focal point in mind and body See .
- The drill on where and how to look up old texts remains the same basics: transliteration, word for word at scripture4all; then the specific word and how often and how it is used, at Strong's Lexicon, and scroll down to the commentary including Thayer's; and further discussion at translation comparisons at hebrewoldtestament; and Blue Letter Bible.
Gen.2.7 Adm is created; the human; eAdm;
2:15, still the human, but add a "he" that defines gender, u inch eu, he is leaving him; suddenly in
2:20, adm becomes the proper name Adam in the transliteration, but the adm is the same word, for human. Why the proper name? also at
2:20, adm needs a helper as in front of him, the ozr kngdv;
2:22-- the angular organ of him the adm, is taken to the woman;
2:24 he is leaving father of him and mother of him -- that has to be part of a much later event, other people, because eadm has no father and mother, etc. and clings in woman of him (still no "wife"),
3:1 -- e ashe for woman,
1.1 Adam and his wife;
3:17 - why the proper name Adam for adm, human? goes on at
3:21 -- the word is adm, human, but is given as Adam.
1.2 Eve and her husband -- at
3:20, adm names the woman "chue"; she is referred to by name at
4:1, as having "acquired" Cain by God (by bargaining with, a transaction, a deal with God). Adm hadn't a clue how that came about? Nobody put the Act together with the later baby until far later, in human understanding, isn't that so?
1.3 The man and his wife. Hunh. No basis.No points.
1.4 The woman and her husband. No basis. No points. So far, man and woman, no dominance, no hierarchy.
1.5 Human and woman - 2:25, eadm and u ashth u, and at 3:8, e ashe on in chapter 3, still a draw.
1.6 Adam and woman of you - ashth k, 3:20 also woman of him, ashth u, Still a draw.
FN 1 Text analysis, form criticism. Apply and massage.
If there remains a feminine emphasis in texts, we would expect to find reference to a) the woman and her husband -- he in the adjunct role -- more than to b) the man and his wife, that would put her in the adjunct role. Is that so? Check.