.
I just had a wonderful Hebrew Bible light bulb moment, sitting in my usual spot at my (now-)usual Philz, working on homework. Here’s how it happened…
I am currently in the home stretch on my master’s thesis. Not to make excuses and get all off-topic, but if any of my handful of readers has been wondering why the most recent post since this one is from summer of 2017, look no further. The title of my thesis (if I don’t change it again) is, Queer Diakonia: The Role of the Diaconate in Welcoming LGBTQ People to the Episcopal Church. Once it’s done I’m sure I will post (and crow) about it more than is seemly; but for now, please let that provide a little context.
OK, so. One of the last things I am slotting into my paper is a brief interview with Archdeacon David Stickley, who has been a great support through my journey, a good friend and an excellent example of how to deacon. How to be a deacon. Whatever – I still prefer it as a verb. I sent David a short list of interview questions very last minute and he was kind enough to respond overnight, so that I could include some of his answers in my draft if I wanted (which… I was in the process of doing when I got sidetracked to write this and which I need to get back to fairly immediately).
One of David’s replies jumped out at me:
My own personal theology, I have come to realize, is all wrapped up in our Creation Story. When God made that first being, Adam (literally, “being”), God made “them male and female.” Possibly the first use of “them” for the singular, and pointing to the first human being both male and female before they were separated to be helpers and supporters of each other – the fundamental tasks of every single human being born to them, and after them.
And God, after finishing all this work, said, “It is very good.” Not “Some of it is very good, and I ain’t sure about the rest…”
Food for thought! As I responded to David, why have I never gotten that use of they as singular? Ah! Because my go-to study Bible (NRSV), uses the plural mankind in place of the Hebrew adam, which the KJV has capitalized as a singular name… and now I’m down a rabbit hole of comparing translations of Genesis 5:2 (see below if you like).
So why “tyranny”? Well first because in a shiny ADD moment, I originally wrote the above sentence and misspelled “translations” as “tyranslations”… and thought, “the tyranny of translation? Ooh, yes! I may need to find a place to use that.” (Well, OK, the first thought of course was Tyrannosaurus…)
Second and more importantly, words from the Bible – especially certain passages, especially in certain translations and especially under the umbrella of Christianity – have been used to judge, condemn, exclude and harm LGBTQ+ people for far too long. As I mention in my thesis,
Much of the current justification for persecution of queer people by Christians can be traced to inaccurate translations, poor interpretations, and/or taking the writings out of their historical and cultural contexts.
In his blog post, The Bible does not condemn “homosexuality.” Seriously, it doesn’t, Adam Nicholas Phillips, the founding pastor for Christ Church Portland, notes that, “The word ‘homosexuality’ didn’t even show up in English translations of the Bible until 1946, so why do we say the Bible condemns it?” What Phillips refers to as the “trouble verses” (also called the “clobber verses” by many), are: Genesis 19:5, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10.
But here’s the Litmus test I prefer to use for Christian teaching, expressed so eloquently by Episcopal Archbishop Michael Curry:
If it’s not about love, then it’s not about God.
+++++ For the Bible Geeks (or anyone who wants to be) ++++++
Without further ado, here is what Genesis 5:2-3 looks like, in a few translations (the highlighted words in each are cited as that Bible’s translation of the Hebrew word adam or adamah):
(ESV) Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. .
(NRSV) Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them “Humankind”when they were created. When Adam had lived one hundred thirty years, he became the father of a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.
(KJV) Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth
While I don’t often cite Wikipedia (and close to never in academic work), I did find its treatment of the etymology of the word adam of interest. (And unlike in my thesis work, I am not going to take the time here to find better, deeper or more scholarly sources… too many rabbit holes in that field). Here is what the wiki said:
Adam (אדם) literally means “red”, and there is an etymological connection between adam and adamah, adamah designating “red clay” or “red ground” in a non-theological context.[7]In traditional Jewish theology, a strong etymological connection between the two words is often assumed. Maimonides believed the word adam to be derived from the word adamah, analogous to the way in which mankind was created from the ground.[8] In contemporary biblical scholarship there is a general consensus that the words have an etymological relationship, but the exact nature of it is disputed. The word adam has no feminine form in Hebrew, but if it did, it would be adamah.[6] However, it is considered unlikely that the word adamah is a feminization of “adam”, and the prevailing hypothesis is that both words originate from the verbal stem “adam” (to be red) and were chosen by the author of Genesis to convey the relationship between man and the adamah.[7][9]
____________________
Wikipedia listing for adamah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamah