Conversations on gender

Gender studies, gender sensitivity, and gender references are often used in various spaces. Gender matters in development goals are essential to any serious consideration of progressive human affairs. We now know that patriarchal assumptions are antithetical to human development in the 21st century.

An ancient text that has informed our thinking today is the Bible. Unfortunately, much of its study via Christianity has been guided by and limited to the Latin translation. With the best of intentions, the early church fathers missed some important truths about gender equality due to a failure to lean on the source text of Hebrew tradition.

November 25 is observed each year as IDEVAW – International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (and girls). It is fitting that in this area of Family and Religion, we pause to look at the biblical text and its inadvertent negative contribution to misogyny. Of course, misogyny, by extension, contributes to homophobia.

How has the Genesis text been misinterpreted, thereby leading to misunderstanding and misuse in the denigration of women and a host of attendant negative consequences for humanity through the ages? Did translators take liberty to interpret rather than to translate? And, has this been problematic?

THEOLOGICAL REASONING

The primary reference to Genesis 1:26-27 is often misinterpreted. It states, among other versions of the Bible: “And God said, “ Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” ( King James Version - KJV)

Genesis 1:26-27: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (English Standard Version ESV)

At the outset, it is to be noted that in Genesis 1, “adam” is a ‘human being”. Adam means “earthling”. An earthling is made from “adamah”, which is earth in Hebrew. Ha-adam, or the earthling, is what human is. In translation, the text refers to the human being as “them” when the translator decided to change “it” to “them.” Now, the Genesis myth is not objective truth. It is also not a thesis on history. Instead, it presents theological reasoning consistent with the Hebrew understanding at the time. When the singular form is used, the text is giving focus to the singularity of the one human being. When the plural form is used, it is giving focus to the reality of femaleness and maleness in the one being.

Ha-adam is used in Genesis 1. The Hebrew terms for man and woman (ish and ishshah) are not used in Genesis 1. They are first used in Genesis 2:23. According to the source text in Hebrew, God saw that ha-adam (the earthling) was alone and it was not good for this to happen. Hence the event of separating the two sides (not a rib). Wherever the Hebrew text uses tselah, it is translated “side” in other parts of the Bible! There is no “rib” in the Hebrew Book of Genesis. The translators translated tselah as “rib”, when it is “side”. The female side of the earthling was used to make another being, which was called “woman.”

Note that this exegetical approach to the text is widely known in Jewish scholarship. It is also employed by Christian theologians. This exploration of the text is unfortunately not common to the experience of the average reader or Bible study engagement. It is not surprising that our revered church fathers were gravely flawed in their limitation to the Latin translation. If only they had relied more on the source text of Hebrew writings, they would not have said some of the asinine stuff that has contributed to centuries of misogyny!

PATRIARCHAL PROJECT

Tertullian’s teaching that every woman carries the curse of Eve as the originator of sin must be called out! He saw woman as the source of temptation. He would, therefore, agree with covering up as much of a woman’s body as possible. He agreed with Paul that a woman’s head should be covered and that she not to be allowed to do priestly ministry!

Our beloved St Augustine believed that women were not educated. In fact, due to mistranslation, he taught that the woman’s function was to be helpmate for the man. He did not get the memo that the word translated as “helpmate” or “helper” would best have been translated as “sustainer”.

The many unsavoury statements informed by ignorance are best not pursued any further here, given their offensive nature. Suffice to say that church fathers such as Origen, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Clement of Alexandria, inclusive of philosophers such as Aristotle, have informed much of today’s prevailing misogyny.

Now that we know that Genesis 1:26 does not use the Hebrew ish for man, we may ask, “What was it saying then?” It was making a distinction between bi-gender earthling in 1:26 and masculine man in 2:23. Even in 2:7, ish is not used because the gender ambivalent earthling is still in focus.

Such are the textual issues in translation, which have led to much misunderstanding and centuries of darkness that have oppressed women and by extension, gender and sexual minorities. It is a patriarchal project to place man as the epitome of the created order. Instead, it was a gender-ambivalent being or earthling that was first created. In the second creation story, ha-adam is no longer in focus since ha-adam becomes Adam! Stay tuned to Family and Religion for more interesting conversations on these matters.

- Fr. Sean Major-Campbell, Anglican priest and advocate for human rights seanmajorcampbell@yahoo.com. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.