TRANSLATING THE BIBLE: BIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND GENDER ISSUES by Mary Phil Korsak. INTRODUCTION       The purpose of the article is twofold. First, it aims to provide some insights into different approaches to Bible translation in the English language. Second, it attempts to the bring to the fore issues of embedded patriarchal ideology and authority in biblical writings and translations. Broadly speaking, the history of the Bible itself is the history of texts created and revised in patriarchal settings, promoting male images and values and demoting female images and values.1 Most biblical texts are the work of men, not of women. Most Bible translations are done by men, not by women. Different versions therefore are presented and examined here to see to what extent they accentuate or mitigate an androcentric bias which is characteristic of the source texts. The article begins with a brief evocation of The Revised Standard Version, the most illustrious of English translations, whose history goes back to the seventeenth century. By way of contrast, two twentieth century English translations: The New English Bible and The Holy Bible by Ronald Knox 2 are then introduced. To situate my own experience as a Bible translator, there follows a brief survey of the changes taking place today in the field of literary translation with particular reference to the UK. Against this background I present my work on a new English version of Hebrew Genesis, entitled At the start… Genesis made new.3 THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION       The history of The Revised Standard Version is familiar. It is a cultural as well as a religious monument. Its forerunners appeared in Shakespeare's time when the English language had attained a glorious peak. Shakespeare died in 1616. The Authorised or King James Version was published in 1611. The language of that period provided an excellent medium for translating the Bible. Moreover, early versions were the work of outstanding Hebrew scholars who, in the context of the protestant Reformation, paid for their initiative with their lives. Their translations, in the form of many revised versions, has come down as a legacy to the present day. Consequently The Standard Version has acquired a hallowed character and any changes are subject to rigorous examination. For example, potential revisions of The American Standard Version in the nineteen forties were discussed by extensive committees of scholars and reviewers and modifications were determined by a two-thirds majority vote. Furthermore, The Revised Standard Version has exercised an influence on the English language and English literature down the centuries. Any cultured person, for instance, understands what is implied by "Vanity of vanities…" (Eccles 1. 2) just as they do by "A rose by any other name…".4 Moreover, The Revised Standard Version has come to be considered an authority in its own right. It has popular as well as scholarly backing. Mucking about with the Bible is a predictable way to make people upset and angry. Many feel an instinctive protectiveness about their familiar translation, as though they were preserving God's original words. Biblical translation is a subject on which everyone has a view and most people feel natural experts 5 By the Bible understand the Bible in English. Even those who make a stand against the embedded ideologies of The Revised Standard Version kow-tow to its greatness. For instance, the translation entitled The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version,6 which seeks to eliminate "differences of gender, race and physical disability", does so not by re-translating the Bible but by adapting the New Revised Standard Version, replacing "those metaphors which can be considered sexist, racist or offensive in any way" by metaphors that are judged inoffensive. THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE and THE HOLY BIBLE       Two other English versions are quoted along with The Revised Standard Version. The New English Bible is a translation "in current English undertaken by the major Christian bodies (other than Roman Catholic) of the British Isles. It is not a revision of the Authorised Version, nor is it intended to replace it" (NEB cover flap). Its horizon is ecumenical. The years of work invested by scholarly committees justify its claim to authority. Its style ensures that it is readily accessible to contemporary readers. The first edition was published in 1961. In contrast, The Holy Bible by Ronald Knox, is the work of one scholar, a Roman Catholic clergyman. The Knox translation appeared in the nineteen fifties. (The first book, Genesis, was published in 1949). Formerly the translation known as the Douai Version, 11 was a favourite in the Roman Catholic Church. This latter version also goes back to the seventeenth century: it was used by the "papists" under the Elizabethan persecution. The Holy Bible then has something in common with The New English Bible: both versions break with the ancient tradition of venerable predecessors, adopting a free style in order to reach out to contemporary readers. LITERARY TRANSLATION ON THE THRESHOLD OF THE 21st CENTURY       A jump is now made to the world of literary translation and the changes taking place there. As recently as the nineteen-sixties and seventies, the translator appeared as a modest figure, hidden, anonymous, hard-working, unrecognised, at the service of the source text and subordinate to the original writer. By contrast, today, at the beginning of the 21st century, translators' voices are growing more assertive and this despite the disadvantages of globalisation, highly developed technology, bigger publishing houses and the pressure of economic forces, which are a distinct threat to the art of translation.7 This change has been promoted over the last twenty years by the development of "Translation Studies" in academic circles, which has fostered the recognition that literary translation involves research, that it is itself an art form: it is claimed that the translator creates a new text, a new language.8 Personally, I feel at home with this perspective. Through work done on biblical texts I have come to regard myself as a translator cum poet. Bible translation, like any other form of literary translation, implies a creative and artistic endeavour. TRANSLATING HEBREW GENESIS       The translator's work is marked by her affinity with and perception of the source text. In my experience, the translator who wrestles with Hebrew Genesis cannot fail to be moved by the power of the book, by its primitive strength, by its popular character, which is "rough and tender, naive and wise". The words are Etty Hillesum's.9 My perception of the Bible as poetry is comforted by the vision of an artist like Chagall, who writes, "Since my youth I have been fascinated by the Bible. It has always appeared to me, and still does, as one of the greatest sources of poetry of all time".10 How does this affect Bible translation? In poetry, because form and meaning are inextricably intertwined, the repetition of words, the use of metaphor and analogy, which are formal characteristics of writing, not only contribute to the reader's aesthetic enjoyment but also play a significant role in the transmission of meaning. To illustrate what is involved, it is necessary to broach some technical aspects of the translator's task.       At the start… is based on the principle of one English word for one Hebrew word, an approach adopted already in the nineteenth century by Julia E. Smith.11 This means searching for an English word that can systematically carry the weight of particular Hebrew word, a painstaking task which implies a deal of the lexical research. This point is clarified by an example. Many words have a variety of meanings. Hebrew safa, for instance, means "lip", "language", and "shore". In the normal run, a translator would consider these three distinct meanings essential and opt for "lip", "language" or "shore" according to context. The translator who applies the above principle, on the contrary, examines the possibility of using one English word in all three cases. Her research leads along several paths. "Lip" is " lip" when it refers to a speech organ, (as everyone will agree), but is it possible to use the word "lip" for "language" and "lip" for "shore"? To answer these questions, it is necessary to examine all the biblical contexts in which safa occurs and to check lexicons, dictionaries and thesaurus. In the case of "lip" for "language, English has the following usage, "Don't give me any of your lip", meaning "talk" or "language", the connotation being "saucy talk or language". The Oxford Dictionary also gives "lip" for "language" as an archaism inherited from Bible translations! Furthermore, an analogy springs to mind: another speech organ: "tongue" is commonly used to mean "language". So "lip" for "language" has possibilities. It then becomes a question of weighing up losses and gains before making a final choice. To summarise the gains: colloquial and archaic usage suggest that "lip" for "language", though not current, is comprehensible. Furthermore, "lip" for "language" has the potential value of analogy and metaphor.       This technical explanation reveals something of the cards the translator has in hand but what matters at the end of the day is the effect on the reader. To allow the reader to make comparisons here are the renderings of verse 11, 7 in The Tower of Babel story from At the start…, The Revised Standard Version, The New English Bible and The Holy Bible: Come we will go down and make their lip babble there so that no man shall hear the lip of his companion (Ats 11. 7) Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. (RSV 11. 7) Come, let us go down there and confuse their speech, so that they will not understand what they say to one another. (NEB 11. 7) It would be well to go down and throw confusion into the speech they use there, so that they will not be able to understand each other ('s language or speech understood). (HB 11. 7) It is noteworthy that the three last versions quoted not only translate the meaning of safa according to context but also translate the same word by English variants: language/speech (RSV); speech/what they say (NEB); language/no translation (HB). Avoiding repetition is one of the rules of good prose-writing, the inference being that these versions are intended first and foremost for reading. At the start, on the contrary, deliberately transmits repetitions which are an integral part of the Hebrew text. By so doing, it intends to foster the text's potential for memorisation and recitation in keeping with Hebrew tradition.       Returning now to "lip" for "shore"? Here also analogies are to be found: "the lip of the sea" is comparable to current phrases such as "the arm of the river", "the foot of the mountain", "the head of the stream". The metaphors in these phrases suggest an anthropomorphic perception of the natural environment. Such phrases, however, are over-familiar and the primitive and poetic personalisation of nature they originally conveyed is no longer perceived. It is argued here that the coining of a new phrase "the lip of the sea" can reinvigorate the language by heightening awareness of these anthropomorphic metaphors. Thus, by echoing ancient Hebrew usage, poetic connotations in the English language are renewed. These subtleties, which are vital for the translator poet, may appear fastidious but it is thanks to innumerable details of this kind that an overall impression is made upon the reader. To illustrate, here is verse 22. 17 from the different versions: Yes, bless! I will bless you Increase! I will increase your seed like the stars of the skies like the sand on the sea's lip (Ats 22. 17) I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore (RSV 22. 17) I will bless you abundantly and greatly multiply your descendants until they are as numerous as the stars in the sky and the grains of sand on the sea-shore. (NEB 22. 17) More and more I will bless thee, more and more will I give increase to thy posterity, till they are as countless as the stars in heaven or the sand by the sea shore. (HB 22. 17) The first quotation above shows how the translator who sets out to "restore" Hebrew vocabulary through the medium of English finds herself inventing "a new language", a poetic language, which, when developed in many details, can convey a fresh perception of the book of Genesis.       A glance at the above quotations suffices for other differences between the versions to leap from the page. More of this below. To continue discussion of lexical choices, At the start… echoes Hebrew word patterns, which underscore the meaning of the Hebrew text. To give an example, ha-adam and ha-adama form an etymological pair. They are therefore translated by an etymological pair: "the groundling" and "the ground". The message then comes across as follows: the groundling is to serve the ground (2. 5); the groundling is formed from the soil of the ground (2. 7); the groundling will return to the ground at death (3. 17 - 19). This contrasts with The Revised Standard Version reading: man is to till the ground (2. 5); man is formed of dust of the ground (2. 7); Adam will return to the ground at death (3. 17 – 19).       Besides maintaining lexical links, At the start… preserves the lexical distinctions of the Hebrew text. To illustrate, another pair of words, ish/isha, is introduced. First, the relation between the two words is noted: ish is linked by assonance to isha. Second, the distinction between ha-adam and ish, man is noted. All three words, ha-adam, isha and ish, occur in verses 2. 22-23, which are quoted from At the start… and The Revised Standard Version respectively: YHWH Elohim built the side he had taken from the groundling (ha-adam) into wo-man(isha) he brought her to the groundling (ha-adam) The groundling (ha-adam) said       This one this time       is bone from my bones       flesh from my flesh       This one shall be called wo-man (isha)       for from man (ish)       she has been taken this one (Ats 2. 22-23). and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man (ha-adam) he made into a woman (isha) and brought her to the man (ha-adam). Then the man (ha-adam) said,       This at last is bone of my bones       and flesh of my flesh;       she shall be called Woman (isha),       because she was taken out of Man (ish) (RSV 2. 22-23).       The verbal distinctions made here have meaningful implications. In At the start… the groundling, ha-adam, is understood to be a generic: it refers to the human, man and woman, or to the human (the male), in which case the presence of woman is always mentioned. The word "man" is reserved for man (the male) as related to wo-man, thus reproducing the Hebrew word link ish/isha. Consequently, in this version the word "man" (the male) occurs only three times in the Garden of Eden story (Gen 2. 22-23; 3. 6). The above quotation shows man and woman issuing from the human "groundling". In The Revised Standard Version, on the other hand, where "man/the man" (sometimes without, sometimes with an article) translates both ha-adam and ish, the word "man" occurs twenty-two times (variant "husband" twice) in the same story. Where "man" without the article signifies a generic, "the man" signifies "the male". As a result, the above quotation tells that a woman is made from the rib of "the man" (the male). The New English Bible makes the same choices as The Revised Standard Version here. The Holy Bible, on the other hand, has several words for ha-adam: "human" (2. 5); "man/the man" (2. 7, 9….); "Adam" (2. 19 …) and "husband" (3. 6, 16) The words "human" and "man" have generic value. The words "the man", "Adam" and "husband" signify the male. Here is The Holy Bible rendering of the same verses: This rib, which he had taken out of Adam, the Lord God formed into a woman; and when he brought her to Adam, Adam said, Here, at last, is bone that comes from mine, flesh that comes from mine; it shall be called Woman, this thing that was taken out of Man (HB 2. 22-23). In summary, the above exposition of the different principles guiding the translator's lexical choices reveals significant consequences for gender issues.       Returning to technicalities, it has been shown that a poetic rendering seeks to transmit formal characteristics of the source text such as verbal repetition, word links and lexical difference. To these must be added Hebrew wordplay. Wordplay is found, notably, in naming verses. In Genesis 11. 9, for example, the Hebrew name Babel is explained by the Hebrew verb balal. babel/balal is rendered as follows in the different versions: So they called its name Babel for there YHWH made the lip of all the earth babble (Ats 11. 9) Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. (RSV 11. 9) That is why it is called Babel, because the Lord there made a babble of the language of all the world. (NEB 11. 9) That is why it was called Babel, Confusion, because it was there that the Lord confused the whole world’s speech. (HB 11. 9) The quotations show that the three contemporary versions transmit Hebrew wordplay in naming verses, whereas The Revised Standard Version does not. (Sometimes the RSV adds an explanatory footnote).       A second naming verse illustrates how the loss of wordplay can involve a loss of meaning. Genesis 3. 20 contains Hebrew wordplay hawwa/hay. Here are the two versions that reflect the wordplay, followed by the reading of The Revised Standard Version: The groundling called his woman's name Life (Eve) 12 for she is the mother of all that lives (Ats 3. 20) The name which Adam gave his wife was Eve, Life, because she was the mother of all living men (HB 3. 20) The man called his wife's name Eve, because she is the mother of all living (RSV 3. 20) The New English Bible follows The Revised Standard Version here also. Both have a footnote: "That is Life" (NEB). "The name in Hebrew resembles the word for living" (RSV). However, because it has been so long omitted from the texts and probably also because of all the negative commentary aimed at Eve, the meaning of her name has generally been forgotten. In the Hebrew text, a person's name is linked to their identity. A name is associated with power. If Eve were known as "Life", her reputation would not have suffered as it has done. The meaningless name Eve has left her defenceless.       Passing to more general considerations, the above quotations illustrate how At the start… follows the Hebrew text closely, seeking to preserve the clarity of its concrete vocabulary and metaphorical usage and reflecting its brevity. Furthermore, rhythmic lines in English echo the spoken rhythms of the Hebrew. For this reason, the English text is laid out in an original free verse form. Other choices concern names. On the one hand, in order to reflect the original culture of the source text, divine names keep their Hebrew character. For example, Hebrew elohim is transliterated as Elohim (cf. Allah for the Koran); the consonants of the tetragrammaton are transliterated as YHWH. These names have rich religious and cultural connotations. On the other hand, to facilitate reading in English, as a general principle, familiar English-sounding names are used in the case of human characters. For the same reason, traditional forms of the English tense system are used, despite the fact that the Hebrew has perfect and imperfect verb forms and no tense system.       It is difficult to communicate the flavour of a translation by giving a few isolated examples. At the start… has been assigned to the field of ethno-poetics. In his preface to the translation David Moody, Professor of English and American Literature at York University, notes that this version conveys the essential remoteness of the ethos of YHWH and his people from the English-speaking world of today. It brings home to us its distance and difference, and so enables us to find a valid relation to it as readers from another time, another world. 13. Yes, I have tried to render the content, form and music of the Hebrew text. Whilst recognising that it is impossible to pin down the original, I hope that the poetic quality of the translation will ensure its appeal, that it will be read aloud, that it will sing out, that the new form will permit the reader to connect to the essential. The translation does not intend to convey any explicit ideology. It avoids footnotes which tell the reader how and what to read. It seeks especially, but not exclusively, to interest the secularised, offering them, as David Moody puts it, "a new experience of the book hitherto known as Genesis".13 PATRIARCHAL IDEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE       The first part of this article has looked at different approaches to Bible translation and in the process broached some gender issues. To further discussion of the latter a definition of patriarchal ideology is now proposed. An ideology can be defined as a set of ideas which serves to promote power, covering up a truth that threatens to destabilise that power. In the case of the Bible a specific meaning, likely to serve a prevailing ideology, is attributed to a text to the exclusion of other different interpretations. The article argues that it is possible to discern ideological influences in translated Bibles, which serve the cause of patriarchy at the expense of womankind. This view was defended as early as the nineteenth century by American E Cady Stanton. In 1895, in her introduction to The Woman's Bible, Stanton wrote From the inauguration of the movement for woman's emancipation the Bible has been used to hold her in the 'divinely ordained sphere' prescribed in the Old and New Testaments… When in the early part of the Nineteenth Century, woman began to protest against their civil and political degradation, they were referred to the Bible for an answer.14 The accusations made here by Stanton are not to be explained away as feminist imaginings. On the contrary, substantial evidence of the abuse of women which finds justification in the Bible is supplied by nineteenth century American jurisprudence. The following example is taken from a divorce case in 1862: Unto the woman it is said: "Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee": Genesis 3. 16. It follows that the law gives the husband power to use such a degree of force as is necessary to make the wife behave herself and know her place".15 While these legal assertions may appear ludicrous to us in a different day and age, religious beliefs and cultural reception concerning the status of woman have not changed all that much since Stanton's time. Her claim that The Bible teaches that woman brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgement seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced 14 is still part of official religious teaching, though the terms used today may be less dramatic. And this view remains deeply ingrained in our cultural heritage. The outstanding American Bible scholar, Robert Alter, for instance, describes one current view of Eve as "man's subservient helpmate, whose weakness and blandishments will bring such woe into the world".16 GENESIS 3. 16       Genesis 3. 16 is of particular interest for this article because it provides a biblical view of the woman/man relationship: To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;       in pain you shall bring forth children,       yet your desire shall be for your husband,       and he shall rule over you (RSV 3. 16) The immediate context of the verse is as follows: after the eating of the forbidden fruit, the Deity solemnly addresses the serpent, then the woman, then Adam. Verse 3. 16 covers all that is said to the woman. This verse can be broken down into a), b), c), d). a) The Deity speaks to the woman of increased labour and pregnancies, b) of her labour and giving birth, c) of woman's desire for her man, and in d) announces that he (the husband) shall rule her (the woman). The first three pronouncements concern woman's birth-giving capacity and her sexual desire. Feminist Bible scholars17 argue (I think fairly) that the fourth pronouncement about the husband's ruling belongs to the same context. Attention is drawn to this point. In contrast, as illustrated in the example from Joyner versus Joyner, a man's power to rule over woman has generally been considered to apply much further afield. Confirmation of this view is found in the RSV footnote which reads: This divine judgement contains an old explanation of woman's pain in childbirth, her sexual desire for her husband (i.e. her motherly impulse), and her subordinate position to man in ancient society (emphasis mine). The phrase underlined in the quotation points to man's ascendancy over woman. It was used in the Joyner versus Joyner case to justify male abuse of women.       And the other two versions? Here are the renderings of the same quotation from The new English Bible and The Holy Bible respectively: You shall be eager for your husband and he shall be your master (NEB 3. 16). and thou shalt be subject to thy husband (HB 3. 16) he shall be thy lord (HB 3. 16). The New English Bible rendering "eager for" is crude and unclear. The Holy Bible translation "subject to" is inexact. Furthermore, although the Revised Standard Version has the exact translation "desire", its footnote reveals a malaise: it defines woman's "sexual desire" as her "motherly impulse"! Well, poor Eve! Interestingly the same translators condone man's desire for woman in the Song of Songs, where one finds "desire" (RSV) and "longing" in a comparable context (NEB. HB) (Song 7. 11). Is the difference between man's desire and woman's desire introduced by translators the sign of an implicit cultural difference18 in a puritan society which considers man's desire for woman legitimate but cannot admit woman's desire for man?       The translation of the word mashal ,"rule", also invites comment. This verb occurs many times in the Hebrew Bible. In Genesis the great and lesser lights (the sun and the moon) are said to "rule" the day and the night (1. 16); Cain "rules" sin (4. 7); Abraham's servant "rules" his household (24. 2); Joseph "rules" his brothers (37. 8). Among the many occurrences outside the book of Genesis, one is of particular interest for the present discussion: in Isaiah 3. 12 there is a reference to women "ruling" the people. This usage shows that Hebrew mashal is not gender-specific. Yet it is rendered by the gender specific translations: "he shall be your master" (NEB) and "he shall be thy lord" (HB); These readings can be traced back to the Greek Septuagint 19 (see also the Latin Vulgate).20 They emphasise male domination over woman in a hierarchy in which man's position is seen to be superior. CONCLUSION       The second part of this article has intimated that Genesis 3. 16 c) and d) address woman's sexual desire for man and man's control of woman's sex life and birth-giving capacity. It has shown that in the Garden of Eden story phrases such as "eager for", "subject to" one's husband, colour female desire to woman's disadvantage, whilst the Revised Standard Version footnote to Genesis 3.16 is tantamount to a denial of female sexual desire. The article has also shown that Hebrew mashal, "rule",, has become gender specific in translation, thus emphasising "male" rule and that where male rule has been recognised as absolute, the authority of Genesis 3. 16 has been used to justify male abuse of women. One is tempted to ask why these unfavourable prejudices with regard to the woman in the Garden. Is it because the story is generally considered to treat of sin and punishment with Eve as the source of the world's woes? Is it because woman's desire is a source of puritanical embarrassment? Is it because, Bible translation being a male preserve, male translators, unconsciously or otherwise, express here a down-with-women, up-with-men stance? Whatever the reason for these misogynous tendencies, they tend to gather strength as different cultural views and translations succeed one another. I conclude by quoting Genesis 3. 16 in full from The Holy Bible. Of the versions mentioned it is the most condemnatory as far as Eve is concerned. The emphasis (mine) indicates those words in the translation which end up belying the Hebrew text (with apologies to Ronald Knox). The Holy Bible translation is set out below in parallel to the same verses from At the start… to bring out the differences. To the woman he said                                               To the woman he said       Many are the pangs, many are the throes                 Increase, I will increase       I will give thee to endure;                                           your pains and your conceivings       with pangs thou shalt give birth to children               with pains you shall breed sons       and thou shalt be subject to thy husband;                 For your man your longing       he shall be thy lord (HB 3. 16)                                   and he, he shall rule you (Ats 3.16) Published in Bible Translation on the Threshold of the 21st Century, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 2002 www.continuumbooks.com Bibliography and notes 1. Asphodel Long, In a chariot drawn by lions (The Women's Press, 1992). 2. Ronald Knox, The Holy Bible (London: Burns and Oates, 1949). 3. Mary Phil Korsak, At the start… Genesis made new (Louvain Cahiers, 1992; New York: Doubleday, 1993). 4. William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet II, 1. 5. Margaret Hebblethewaite, Fresh Beginnings (Review in The Tablet, 5 March 1994) 6. The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version (General Introduction) (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. viii. 7. "The tendency within these external forces is to downgrade the artistry to want the translator to be a compliant cog helping turn the wheels of a vast machine more virtual by the day" . Peter Bush, The Art of Translation, (The British Council Literary Translation Exhibition, www.literarytranslation.com 1999). 8. "Translators … have to research the text… other translations and critical interpretations, and then make a radically different move. They must create in their language a new text, a new language that will develop through many drafts and re-writings in a constant to-ing and fro-ing in relation to a … text of which they will have to cultivate different versions. Although the translator pursues many paths of meaning, his or her art reaches to create a rich and ambiguous language". Peter Bush, (idem). 9. Etty Hillesum, Fr transl. P Noble, Journal 1941-1943 (Edition du Seuil, 1988), p. 155. 10. "Depuis ma première jeunesse, j'ai été captivé par la Bible. Il m'a toujours semblé et il me semble encore que c'est la plus grande source de poésie de tous les temps. Depuis lors j'ai cherché ce reflet dans la vie et dans l'Art. La Bible est comme une résonance de la nature et ce secret j'ai essayé de le transmettre". Marc Chagall, Le Message Biblique (Nice: Musée du Message Biblique. Musée Cimiez). 11. "I soon gave my attention to the Hebrew… and wrote it out word for word… endeavouring to put the same English word for the same Hebrew or Greek word, everywhere, while King James's translators have wholly differed from this rule; but it appeared to us to give a much clearer understanding of the text". Julia E. Smith, Holy Bible (Preface) (American Publishing Company 1876), p. 1. A similar principle is adopted in E. Fox's translation, In the Beginning (1983). 12. The Septuagint renders the wordplay: Zoe/zontov. The Vulgate, however, names the woman "Eva", probably because Eva sounds like hawwa. 13. David Moody, Foreword to At the start… Genesis made new, pp. xi-xiii. 14. E Cady Stanton, The Woman's Bible, (Introduction) (1895) p. 7. 15. "The wife must be subject to her husband. Every man must govern his household, and if by reason of an unruly temper, or an unbridled tongue, the wife persistently treats her husband with disrespect , and he submits to it, he not only loses all sense of self-respect, but loses the respect of other members of his family, without which he cannot expect to govern them, and forfeits the respect of his neighbours. Such have been the incidents of the marriage relation from the beginning of the human race. Unto the woman it is said: "Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee": Gen 3,16. It follows that the law gives the husband power to use such a degree of force as is necessary to make the wife behave herself and know her place". It is sufficient for our purpose to state that there may be circumstances which will mitigate, excuse and so far justify the husband in striking the wife "with a horse-whip on one occasion and with a switch on another, leaving several bruises on the person," so as not to give her the right to abandon him, and claim to be divorced". Joyner versus Joyner, 1862. Quoted by Dr K Lee at the Coolidge Colloquium, Cambridge, Mass. 1994. Under the heading Lawmaking and Precedent: How Judges and Lawyers reason from Prior Cases, Lee cites cases where women file a petition for divorce on grounds of assault and battery. 16. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, (New York: Basic Books, 1981) p. 146. 17. For a feminist perspective: Carol Meyers, Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); Phyllis Trible, Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation (Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 41; 1973) pp. 30-48. 18. An example of cultural difference: in a ritual performance of the African people, the Peul, the men don shells and feathers. They roll their eyes and chatter their teeth to attract the attention of the women whose attire is comparatively drab. It is up to each woman then to single out the man who stirs her desire. 19. Greek kurieusei. "Mastery is synonymous with masculinity in most of the Greek and Latin texts that survive from antiquity". S. Moore and J. C. Anderson, Taking it like a man: Masculinity in 4 Maccabees, (Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 117, no. 2. 1998) p. 272. 20. Latin dominabitur.