King James and all that ….
[Why women are different - from what they should be]
In 1611, it must have been another Revelation like that in 70AD when the first was written, for the first time. Other Books had been written of course as separate parchments and/or scrolls. Each meticulously copied by scribes throughout history. Then along came the press and moveable type, with Gutenberg in 1450. It was tight, as there was never enough type to complete a whole bible. Expecting each page to be the same as its fellow in another copy was pure hope, the first Pentateuch in Hebrew in 1482. The King James Bible was awarded its format, it is Authorised, through a patent granted in 1577, granted to Christopher Barker by Queen Elizabeth and printed 1609-1611. This has been transferred from printer to printer to William Collins in 1858; this is a monopoly, make no mistake from 1860 it remains. The next version to appear is the New English Bible, with what were considered appropriate modern translation of the old text which had been written in a Shakespearean prose.
So, in the King James Authorised version is the collective translation and subtranslation of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin; in that Holy Bible reside the known Books and Writings of that time. Old & New Testaments and the Apocrypha.
What was a loose collection of books became a single book. Decision as to order and content had to be made. From 70AD had been raged the fight as to correct canon. By that time some of the New Testament had begun. All of this fight was handled by religious fervour (roughly translated as testosterone) and exclusionism. Hebrew, Christian and Heretic were in traditional confrontation, women being swept aside regardless. A nodding pass to represent women’s place in their age and beliefs. That they have been included in the Holy Texts is of great value for historians and believers alike. It was at this point that another schism opened between the Hebrew canon and the Early Christian canon (under the hand of Marcion and Iraneous. It took considerable debate to produce the Old Testament, as we know it, in 325 AD at Nicaea. I can only surmise as to the arguments and discussions, and I have even to question what we see now in relation to what existed then. As each document was translated from language to language, it has to have lost meaning along the way. But when it ‘hit’ the Latin and or Greek, it would remain so for centuries, being the language of scholars. Again women were largely precluded. But, here is a book of alarming proportions and importance in what was then modern society. Its heritage and peoples were all of another land, far removed from English Life; it was being held up as the Luminance of Life, as an example of how one should be. It became the people’s for another reason, it brought the written word to those that had not seen it before. The language of English itself was being spread with its poetic phraseology, its often lyrical words.
This was a time of endless versions of The Bible ‘One Bible to Rule The All’ was called for by the Throne. Protestants, Septuagint Coverdale Bishop’s Bible, Geneva. All from Church and Throne with no voice for women. Save what is to be read in the Holy Texts and all governed by The Churches. What later emerged though the Georgian Era and the Victorian Period has been formed and promoted by the extension of those principles of exclusion. As can be seen the present Word, even in the stilted English of the New English Bible, lacking prose it does not enter the soul, Because it is a scholarly translation. I would like to know how many women were involved in this work. I place the reasons for the lack of awareness of women and the general attitudes towards women at the feet of those that have given us these holy words. I place it at the feet of those that have terrorised the land with tales of witches (lonely old ladies with only folk remedies and tales to keep them alive), I place it is the feet of those that have treated women over the ages with derision as to their ‘lack of intelligence’, their ‘lack of ability’, jealousy of their ability to communicate, their ability to speak to each other on matters of the heart..
In the Gospel of Mary Magdelen is a very important ‘ruling’ given by Him. 'Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it'. It unfortunately is a fragment, but it does make clear that even then Peter had considerable reservations that a 'mere woman' had conversations of such importance. Not the least factor either is that Mary's language and perception is deeper. That and the 'Rule' possibly held fears for the men of the time. The Alternatives would be fascinating.
[the end of my thoughts on the subject]
