Skip to content

The true harrowing nature of bible translation, or “when in doubt, sacrifice the woman.”

It goes without saying that delving honestly into the sacred texts means playing the “devils advocate” and the saying “the devil’s in the details” is more true here than most would realize. The body of scholars and scholarly literature formed over a couple of millennia testify to the reality that it isn’t just “delving into” something but rather jumping off a precipice into an abyss.

But it might be reasonable to think it an insane move if it weren’t for the disastrous consequences (i.e. desolation) of all the mischief surrounding the interpretation and translation of the original languages. In particular, when it can be seen that the vast majority of religious cheating involves cheating the feminine side of humanity, and the sheer number of those being cheated are in the hundreds of millions, a far greater question has to be asked. Who cares enough to take that plunge?

“And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” – Nietzsche

Jonah took that a step further; dive into her and maybe then you can tame her, and lift the curse. Or die trying. The philosophy to end all philosophies: Swallow death by letting her swallow you.

Genesis 1 alone is enough to swallow someone whole, which is why I have spent over six years trudging through the muddy linguistics of just one chapter.

There are compound words like למינו (le-min-o) that consist of two prepositions and a suffix. Or ממנו “me-min-o” which means both “from us” and “from him.” So which one is it? “From us” would be more properly ממננו but then you have too many double letters. Smashed in between both of these is the same preposition מנ (min) “from”, but because the context is “known” it is okay to “extend” the meaning to “kind/family/genos.” After all “kind” is pretty closely related to the concept of being “from” something. And because it is about “kind” we can go ahead and fix the preposition –ל “to/for” and make it the preposition –כ “according to/like/as.” Does one letter really matter?

Right away in Genesis 1 “direct object markers” are used for no apparent reason, as though it would not be obvious to a reader what is being created? Why would the author waste ink and calligraphic energy with such pointlessness? And the following verse 2 we encounter a verb-object disagreement in gender, one the sages have ignored for ages because it was too uncertain,

היתה תהו ובהו

she has become chaotic, void.

This is improper grammar as evident from the use of היתה hayetah (she has become) across the entire Hebrew Bible. It’s a violation of basic gender grammar principles. But no sage wants to risk his reputation or the status quo, so they ignore it. “What they don’t know won’t hurt them,” right? Whoever wrote these words was not making an error or mistake. They knew what they were doing. The letter ו functions as a third person masculine possessive suffix, and a pretty obvious one at that, and thus these noun constructs would be translated as “she has become a chaotic one of him, and a void one of him.” But the latter word bohu is another problem. The root is, as scholars like to say when it mystifies them, “apparently” from bahah which means “bright or pure.” But rather than risk any reputation and respectability, they find a more obscure cognate meaning from Arabic where it sometimes has a meaning of “empty.” The study of cognate languages is useful, until it becomes a means to cheat the Writing, then it’s no longer cool.

So a more sure footed rendering without any magic tricks is,

“she has become a chaotic one of himself, and a pure one of himself.”

Who are these two “hims”?

I don’t stand to lose any reputation or academic credentials. So eat it or don’t.

Verbs like יהי “he is/becoming” will be called “jussive” just because of the “understood” context. Sometimes the morphology information will read “jussive if contextual.” There is no jussive syntax in Hebrew. “Let there be” is a totally made up conjecture to suit the needs of interpretation.

A word like מארת will sneak up on you and catch you off guard as it looks a lot like מאורת which means “lights.” Without that important letter ו in there the meaning is actually “curse.” Did the author mess up? Nevermind, the Masoretes will fix it in the way only they know how:

Just “add” it in, without actually adding it in, and problem solved.

The Hebrew in chapter 3, יאמר אל האשה אף כי, he is speaking toward the Woman in anger for…

The word אף “aph” is a simple word meaning nostril/anger (snorting, breathing hard, etc, cf. Strongs #639). Some 137 times it is defined as “yea, indeed, also” (cf. Strongs #637) as a conjunction. Conjunctions can sometimes be treated quite lazily, or as a cheat when some sentence doesn’t seem to flow right. This verse is a classic example of fabricating slop where two words next to each other are both taken as conjunctions. The next word “כי” is a demonstrative conjunction meaning “for” which actually contradicts any interrogative sense, in addition to making the preceding “conjunction” redundant. But with the potion carefully mixed, and the wave of a wand, the scribe no longer has to worry about the difficulty of the words before him but can now translate them however he wishes. Where there was no word for “indeed/truly” nor any interrogative prefix ה, one magically appears. The work of a true magician!

Consider some of its appearances elsewhere:

“And Jacob’s anger [אף] burned…” (Genesis 30:2)

“…until he has turned back the anger [אף] of the brother of yourself…” (Genesis 27:45)

“And the anger [אף] of Yahweh was kindled within Moses…” (Exodus 4:14 RBT)

This sort of magic happens in the NT as well.

ὡς Σάρρα ὑπήκουεν τῷ Ἀβραάμ, κύριον αὐτὸν καλοῦσα ἧς ἐγενήθητε τέκνα ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι καὶ μὴ φοβούμεναι μηδεμίαν πτόησιν.

1 Peter 3:6

ὑπήκουεν means “to take heed/hearken” or “listen under.” The meaning of “obey” is considered a special sense, and not the primary meaning. καλοῦσα is a participle verb. Accounting for all the grammar the more certain verse reads,

“in the manner that Sarah listened to the Abraham, she who calls himself [αὐτὸν] master, her of whom you have become children, those who make good and not those who fear even one alarm/panic.”

The “himself within herself” mystery was overlooked, even as it was just mentioned by Peter in verse 4 about adorning herself inwardly,

“but the hidden one of the heart, a man, [κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος]…”

A woman’s desire of a Christ man “entering the heart” was never the question. No one is transitioning gender here. But the real question in this context is, is such a woman separated from himself?

And so the trudging through the sludge goes on and on.