Dominionism = Blasphemy? Treason?

There's been a lot in the news lately about Dominionism (also known as Dominion Theology, with subsets known as Christian Reconstructionism, Seven Mountains theology, and Christian Nationalism). Basically what it is is a belief that Christians (and in this case very conservative - and often Calvinist - members associated with the Christian Right) need to gain control of communications, the arts, finance, the marketplace, and most importantly government, in order to run the world, or at least the United States, according to what they see as God's law as opposed to the existing secular law.

Probably the most succinct expression of the Dominionist agenda is this from the Coral Ridge Ministries' executive director George Grant, who wrote in his 1987 book Changing of the Guard:

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ - to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land - of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God's Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations.

This philosophy is the driving force behind much of the Christian Right's political activism, including its virtual takeover of the Republican Party. Many of the Christian Right leaders these days are Dominionists: Pat Robertson; everybody associated with American Family Association (the Wildmon family empire, which includes the World News Daily news media organization) , especially their public spokesman, Bryan Fischer; the Dobson family's Focus on the Family empire; the whole Liberty Baptist Church organization, including Liberty University, its Law department, the Liberty Center for Law and Policy, and Liberty Counsel, the organization's legal arm; and Christian Nationalist revisionist "historian" David Barton. Several of the current crowd of GOP presidential candidates are also associated with Dominionism: Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and will-she-or-won't-she Sarah Palin.

The interesting thing is that now that the news media has called attention to Dominionism, most of its staunchest proponents are denying that the movement exists. In August Pat Robertson made a big fuss about it on his 700 Club broadcast and claimed he'd never heard of such a thing. And yet he's stated the prime Dominionist objectives over and over again, including this speech in Dallas in 1984 as reported in Al Dager's book Vengeance Is Ours: The Church In Dominion (Sword, 1990):

Now what do you do? What do all of us do? We get ready to take dominion! We get ready to take dominion! It is all going to be ours--I'm talking about all of it. Everything that you would say is a good part of the secular world. Every means of communication, the news, the television, the radio, the cinema, the arts, the government, the finance--it's going to be ours! God's going to give it to His people. We should prepare to reign and rule with Jesus Christ. (Dager, p. 95)

Matt Barber, an associate dean of Liberty University's law school and Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, recently tweeted this in reaction to media coverage of Dominionism: "Can someone tell me what a 'dominionist' is? Best I can tell it's some scary monster that lives under liberals' beds." Yet just last year, at a Liberty University sponsored American Vision’s Worldview Super Conference entitled "2010 Sovereignty and Dominion conference - Biblical Blueprints for Victory!", Barber addressed the conference with these words:

The Bible tells us in Genesis 1:28 that God created us to multiply, fill the earth, and take dominion of His creation for His Glory. When Jesus came to earth, He gave his disciples the Great Commission and told them to make disciples of all nations, Baptize them, and teach them to obey all that he had commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). These two mandates form the basis for why Christ’s Church exists on this planet. Every square inch of this world belongs to King Jesus. It is our privilege to serve Him by exercising servanthood dominion in every area of life.

And John Aman, the current Director of Communications at Truth in Action Ministries, the successor to Coral Ridge Ministries, said "dominionism is a sham charge - one reserved for Christians on the right" that was dreamed up by the Left as "a handy way to smear evangelicals like Bachmann and Perry who bring biblically informed moral convictions into public debate." Obviously he hasn't read his predecessor's book, as quoted above.

Normally such stuff could be ignored or laughed off as a fringe movement with no real power or influence, but this is an ideology espoused by the movement that has gained major influence in one of the two major political parties, and an ideology espoused by a majority of that party's group of politicians vying for nomination as its presidential candidate. These are people determined to seek power and gain control of the country. Laugh if you want, but this is serious stuff and these are serious people.

But it also has serious flaws which have raised opposition both on the religious and secular fronts. Many Christians, and even many evangelicals, object to it as foreign to Christian belief. After all, didn't Jesus say, in response to Pilate's question "Are you King of the Jews?" that "my kingdom is not of this world"? Of course, the usual answer to that by the Dominionists is the Great Commission referred to by Matt Barber above - Matthew 28:18-20. Now he claims that verse commands Christians to teach the world to obey all that Jesus commanded, and leaves the impression that this includes some kind of Christian governance. But what does the passage really say?

And Jesus came and said to them, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

But what did Jesus command them to do? Feed the hungry, care for the sick, house and clothe the poor, love all humanity; there's nothing there about governing and imposing laws on the people.

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said:
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.

But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
- Luke 6:20 - 31

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him, saying, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you? And the King will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.
- Matthew 25: 35 - 40

Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.
- Luke 6: 37 & 38

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say? This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her. And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? She said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.
- John 8: 3 - 11

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, Which commandment is the most important of all? Jesus answered, The most important is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.
- Mark 12: 28 - 31

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
- John 13: 34 & 35

Nothing about governing there, is there? Only advice on how people can live together in harmony, with compassion and respect. In many ways Dominionist theology is, in fact, blasphemy.

Of course, it's also treason. These people are advocating taking over the government and imposing "God's Law" as given in the Bible (mostly drawn from Mosaic Law in the Torah of the Hebrew Scriptures, as Jesus didn't seem to be very big on the laws thing), in effect revoking our Constitution, which says in the First Amendment's establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (A more detailed exposition of this subject can be found here.)In other words, the government can't impose a religion on the population. But that's what these people are proposing to do. Sounds like treason to me.

Our Constitution guarantees a secular government, and we need to protect that legacy. The best protection is awareness. I hope I've contributed to that awareness.


© 2011 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Re-discovering the Divine Mother in the Torah

[I originally posted this several years ago; I thought I'd post it again for Mother's Day this year.]

Let me show you something interesting.

In the King James Version of the Bible Deuteronomy 32:18 is worded this way: "Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee." Note well the verbs used here: to beget (to father, to sire) and to form. Both masculine expressions of the act of creation.

Why is this interesting? Because here is the Hebrew original from which it was translated:

צור ילדך תשׁי ותשׁכח אל מחללך׃
transliteration: tsuur ylaadkhaa teshii wa-tishkah! el mh!ollekhaa.

A more accurate translation of this would be: "You were unmindful of the Rock that brought you forth, and you forgot the God who labored to give birth to you." The Hebrew verbs used are yalad (to bear, to bring forth) and h!iyl (to writhe, to twist, to be in labor, to give birth to), both feminine expressions of the act of creation.

How did such a discrepancy come about? Ah, therein lies a tale!

Long ago in the mists of time the ancient Hebrews were polytheists, like everyone else in the world at the time. Their monotheism based on the High God YHWH emerged only gradually, and even after it triumphed as the "official" national religion a polytheistic folk religion existed side by side with it. When a scriptural canon was eventually compiled and written, elements of the old polytheism, including expressions of the Divine Mother, survived embedded in the text, due to the magnitude of the job and the wide diversity of the materials being compiled. Deuteronomy 32:18 is an example of those old expressions slipping through the editorial net.

Much later on Christianity, which grew out of Judaism, claimed the Hebrew canon as the "prequel" to their own canon. But Christianity was virulently misogynistic; the early Church Fathers, most notably Augustine of Hippo, even argued that women had no souls. Naturally a religion so anti-female couldn't accommodate the idea of the Divine Feminine, so translations of the Hebrew canon buried the Mother under masculine terminology. This is reflected in the Latin Vulgate translation by St. Jerome - "Deum qui te genuit dereliquisti et oblitus es Domini creatoris tui." - and the English translation of the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims version, which was the Catholic Church's answer to England's King James translation: "Thou hast forsaken the God that beget thee, and hast forgotten the Lord that created thee."

[Note: Oddly enough the Greek Orthodox canon preserves those expressions of the Divine Feminine. There was a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Tanakh (the Hebrew name for the Hebrew Bible) which came out of Egypt and was called the Septuagint, or LXX, and was intended to be used by Jews living in the Graeco-Roman world outside the traditional Hebrew homeland. The Greek church adopted the LXX as its "Old Testament" unmodified, and so preserved the original intent of the Jewish canon. Deuteronomy 32:18 runs thus in the LXX:

θεον τον γεννησαντα σε εγκατελιπες και επελαθου θεου του τρεφοντος σε
transliteration: theon ton gennesanta se engkatelipes kai epelathou theou tou trephontos se.

This translates as: "The god who brought you forth you abandoned, and you forgot the God who nurtured you." As you can see, the feminine expression survives.]

Since the 1950s Biblical translation has gotten more accurate and honest. The expressions of the Divine Mother embedded in the Hebrew text are being restored, at least in most English translations. The ESV (English Standard Version), which is the 21st Century update of the Revised Standard Version of the 1950s, translates Deuteronomy 32:18 thus: "You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth."

Hopefully Christianity, which has accepted the Father all along, is now beginning to discover the Mother as well. After all, a healthy, functioning Family of Humanity needs both the Mother and the Father, something the rest of us accepted long ago.

© 2008 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Glenn Beck Fails Again

Good ol' Glenn has managed to make a public spectacle of himself again, and this time he's even managed to alienate more than a few of his usual allies. It seems that he's taken to delving into theology without actually studying the subject first, and in the process he's managed to stomp on the toes of just about the whole range of denominational Christianity, including his own home church, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, aka Mormons.

So what did Glenn say? Basically, he told his listeners to run away from their church if they believed in social justice, calling it a code word for communism and fascism and a perversion of the Gospel. Here are his exact words:

I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! …

If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, “Excuse me are you down with this whole social justice thing?” If it’s my church, I’m alerting the church authorities: “Excuse me, what’s this social justice thing?” And if they say, “yeah, we’re all in that social justice thing”—I’m in the wrong place.

That was from his original radio broadcast. The next is from a follow-up broadcast:

Where I go to church, there are members that preach social justice as members–my faith doesn’t–but the members preach social justice all the time. It is a perversion of the gospel. … You want to help out? You help out. It changes you. That’s what the gospel is all about: You.

Social justice was the rallying cry—economic justice and social justice—the rallying cry on both the communist front and the fascist front. That is not an American idea. And if we don’t get off the social justice economic justice bandwagon, if you are not aware of what this is, you are in grave danger. All of our faiths–my faith your faith–whatever your church is, this is infecting all of them.

Did you notice that one parenthetical aside? He says that while there may be members of his church who preach social justice, his church itself doesn't. And he couldn't be more wrong. In fact the LDS does indeed both preach and practice social justice, starting with exhortations in its chief scripture, The Book of Mormon. I'm not an expert on the LDS, although I've read both the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as some church documents. But I would never pass myself off as a spokesperson for the church. There are two excellent articles online by people who are Mormons and can speak for the church, and I urge you to go read them: a post on the Spiritual Politics blog and an article by Jana Reiss on Beliefnet. Both of these state the LDS policy on social justice clearly, and it's obvious that Glenn Beck doesn't even know his own church's teachings on the subject. Gee, Glenn, looks like you're gonna have to leave and find a new place to go on Sunday mornings!

Not that he'll have much luck. He calls social justice a perversion of the Gospel, but the fact is that it's pretty much hard-wired into all four of the Gospels. Jesus raises up the poor and condemns the rich for hoarding all their money and allowing the poor to get even poorer. He exhorts his followers to care for the poor, the sick, the widow, the disabled, but he doesn't stop there; he makes it an obligation, and punishable by an eternity in hell if you don't. Check out these passages:

20) And he raised his eyes to his listeners and preached: Congratulations, you poor, for God's domain belongs to you.
21) Congratulations, you who starve now, for you will be filled. Congratulations, you who weep and wail now, for you will laugh.
22) Congratulations to you when people detest you and exclude you, and rail at you and drive you out and call you evil because of the Son of Man!
23) Rejoice on that day and leap for joy! Behold, your reward in heaven will be abundant. Remember that their ancestors treated the prophets the same.
24) But beware you wealthy, for you've already received your consolation.
25) Beware you who are filled now, for you will famish. Beware you who laugh now, for you will mourn and wail aloud.
26) Beware whenever everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors regarded the false prophets.
– Luke 6:20 - 26

That's the Beatitudes, the Lukan version (and in my own translation). And here's the passage from Matthew where he makes it an obligation to care for the poor and the weak:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him, saying, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you? And the King will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.

Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me. Then they also will answer, saying, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you? Then he will answer them, saying, Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me. And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
– Matthew 25:31 - 46 (ESV)

Every denomination, and even the independent churches, go out into the community to help the poor and the sick and the homeless; they all, and I emphasize all, have social outreach programs. Not only that, but they also all petition the government to legislate on and promote such activities, which is really what Glenn is objecting to. He objects to the social activism of the liberal churches, but the conservative churches see their programs against state approval of things like abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc. as social justice issues, and the Southern Baptist Convention has even gone on record as scolding Beck because of exactly that. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said on his weekly radio program March 13 that if taken literally, Beck would be asking people to leave Southern Baptist churches. That is because the denomination's official confessional statement, the Baptist Faith and Message, includes an article titled "The Christian and the Social Order" that challenges Southern Baptists "to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society."

So Glenn Beck has failed big time. He's even managed to embarrass his usual supporters. He's failed both New Testament 101 and Book of Mormon 101. Do you think it'll teach him to do a little more studying before he opens his mouth on a subject he doesn't know? Naaaah!

© 2010 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Jesus the Merry Prankster (For All the Sourpusses Out There)

You know, if you took the attitudes and the facial expressions of a lot of conservative Christians to heart, you could easily believe that Christianity was this horribly sober-sided, humorless religion. And if you took some of the English translations of Jesus's words at face value, especially in the translations that the sober-sides favor, like the King James Version, then you'd get the impression that Jesus wasn't a particularly happy guy.

But you'd be wrong. There is a great deal of humor in the Gospels. The problem is that the translations into English (and other languages) just don't bring out that humor. And that problem is caused by the attitudes of the translators themselves, who translate according to their own agendas, and unfortunately many of these translators take themselves and their agendas far too seriously. A lot of the cultural context of first century Palestine and the nuances of the original Greek are left on the cutting-room floor because these guys are focused on getting across the concept that this is Very Serious Business. But if you study the context and the Greek language, there really is a lot of humor in Jesus, especially in the way he expressed himself.

I'm not going to do a full exposition here on humor in the Gospels. You can do that on your own; just Google "humor of jesus" and you'll find a goldmine of information. I'm just going to look at an incident that brings out Jesus's bantering style of repartee.

In the 21st chapter of John, after the Resurrection and after Jesus has appeared to the disciples twice in Jerusalem, Peter decides to go back up to Galilee and start trying to earn a living again. He grabs John and James the sons of Zebedee, Thomas, Nathanael, and two others and says, "Look, I'm going fishing." And they said, "We'll come, too." So off they go. They're out in the boat all night, and by morning they haven't caught a thing. So when the sun comes up in the morning, there's a man on the shore, and he shouts out to them, "Children, do you have any fish?"

That's how the English Standard Version (ESV) translates the question in John 21:5. The King James version has it: "Children, have ye any meat?" And the more modern and often more informal New International version has it: "Friends, haven't you any fish?" Reynolds Price, in his book Three Gospels, translates it: "Boys, nothing to eat?" I like this, because it jibes with my own translation; it has an air of affectionate ribbing as a result of love and a long friendship with these men.

In Greek, the question reads: παιδια μη τι προσφαγιον εχετε (Paidia, me ti prosphagion echete) Now paidia is the diminutive plural of pais - boy. Also, prosphagion indicates something that can be eaten with bread - meat, fish, etc. The whole sentence is very slangy Koiné Greek. A close translation would be: "Kids, have you caught anything to eat?" In the context of the situation and the slang, the man on shore is asking them "Hey guys! You catch any breakfast yet?"

In the light of this little excursion into Greek slang, look at the scene again. These guys are out on the boat all night without catching a thing. Then this fella on the shore shouts out to them "Hey guys! You catch any breakfast yet?" The voice and manner seem familiar, and somebody says "Who's that joker?", while somebody else grumps back to the joker-on-the-shore "No we haven't, thank you very much!" So the guy shouts back "Try the other side of the boat. I bet you'll have better luck there." So they do, and sure enough they get a full net. Meanwhile, John bar Zebedee's been thinking about the voice and the joke, and the lightbulb goes on, and he says "Hey, that's the Lord!" And Peter jumps up startled, and says, "You know, I wonder..." And he peers toward the shore and says "You're right, that IS Jesus!", and he jumps overboard and starts swimmimg to shore.

You see, the disciples figured out who it was on the shore of the lake because Jesus had affectionately poked them in the ribs like this all the time during his ministry. The humor was always there, and that's what gave him away.

There's lots more of this in the Gospels! Jesus was a consummate punster and player with words. He also used satire and irony in his parables, and especially in his dealings with those who took themselves so very seriously; he loved poking fun at the pomposity of the priests and the scribes. But you have to look for it, because the translators have buried that humor under an avalanche of stifling seriousness. Do the Google search I mentioned above and you'll see what I mean. And especially check out Elton Trueblood's The Humor of Christ, a classic in the field.

Jesus may have wept, but he also laughed. Maybe Christianity would be more attractive if his followers laughed more, too.

© 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Twisting Translation to Fit an Agenda

The history of Biblical manuscripts and textual criticism is full of tales about monks messing with the manuscripts in an attempt to force the text be be more aligned to the church's idea of orthodoxy, and also tales of translators who used their knowledge for the same purpose. The Textus Receptus (Latin: received text) is probably the prime example of this. It was the Greek text of the New Testament that Dutch Catholic philosopher Desiderius Erasmus put together as the foundation to be used for translation to Latin (and later other languages). Most Reformation-era vernacular translations of the Bible relied on it - Martin Luther's German Bible, Tynedale's and King James' English translations, and even the Catholic English translation, Douay-Rheims.

But Textus Receptus is badly flawed. Whenever Erasmus couldn't find an existing early Greek manuscript, he translated St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate to Greek. He also included scribal marginal annotations as actual text. The most famous of these was the Johannine Comma, which occurs in two verses of the First Epistle of John, 5:7 - 8. Without the comma these verses read: "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree." This apparently wasn't trinitarian enough for a Fourth Century monk, who added a more suitable addition in the margin. Erasmus added it to the text itself, so that the verses then read (here in the King James Version): "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." [The bolded portion is the added comma.] Later scholars who put together the Greek texts which all modern translators and scholars use recognized the nature of the addition and eliminated it as it deserved.

Why did Erasmus do such a thing? He was out of favor with the Vatican, not only because he was well-known as a humanist philosopher, but also because he acted as adviser to Martin Luther for a time. But without the Vatican's sponsorship Erasmus would cease to have a means of livelihood, so Textus Receptus was his bid to get back into Rome's good graces; he gave them the text that would best please them. But history hasn't treated him as well as the Curia did, and most now recognize his "received text" as anything but.

But this sort of finagling with the original text didn't end in the 16th Century. It still goes on today, which is what spurred me to compose this post. Let's take a look at what's commonly known as "The Lord's Prayer", the version in Matthew 6:9 - 13. Here's the original Greek (from the Nestle-Aland text, 27th edition):

9) ουτως ουν προσευχεσθε υμεις πατερ ημων ο εν τοις ουρανοις αγιασθητω το ονομα σου
10) ελθετω η βασιλεια σου γενηθητω το θελημα σου ως εν ουρανω και επι γης
11) τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον δος ημιν σημερον
12) και αφες ημιν τα οφειληματα ημων ως και ημεις αφηκαμεν τοις οφειλεταις ημων
13) και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου

My translation of these verses is:

9) Instead, you should pray this way: Our father in heaven, your name be revered.
10) Bring down your kingdom, fulfill your will, as in heaven so upon earth.
11) Bestow upon us today whatever bread we need.
12) And forgive us our debts just as we ourselves have forgiven our debtors.
13) And do not force us to endure test after test, but rescue us from the evil one.

Now I need to establish some background. There are some old New Testament texts in Syriac, a variant of Aramaic. The earliest was put together by Tatian in the 2nd Century, called the Diatessaron, which was a book that harmonized the four canonical Gospels, i.e. didn't arrange them as four separate books but arranged them according to similar narrative threads. A later 4th Century text in Syriac eventually developed into the New Testament of the eastern monophysite churches, such as the Assyrian Orthodox and related denominations; it's called the Peshitta (Syriac "simple, common").

Why do I bring this up? Because there's a school of thought called Aramaic Primacy which considers the Syriac texts to be the real "original" text of the New Testament, rather than the Greek. They believe that because these texts are in a variant of the Aramaic spoken in Roman Palestine in Jesus' time, therefore these texts are more "authentic" than the Greek. There are serious problems with these claims.

Solid scholarship shows that these Syriac texts were actually translated from Greek to Syriac. Even Tatian never claimed his Diatessaron to be original. He split from Rome (he was a disciple of Justin Martyr and after Justin's death renounced Rome and moved back to Edessa) and considered his Gospel Harmony to be a way of casting the Gospel into the vernacular of his people. He considered Greek to be the "imperial tongue" and Syriac to be the language of the common people, and acted accordingly. The Peshitta was viewed in the same way, as a thumbing of the nose to the Byzantine and Roman powers who sought to control the Mediterranean world. This motive has much in common with Reformation-era vernacular translations of the Bible; Luther and the Protestant scholars of England who crafted their translations were thumbing their noses at Rome.

And the claim that these Syriac texts are more authentic because they share a language with Jesus is shaky at best. The Aramaic dialect of Syriac differs significantly from the seven Palestinian dialects extant at the time of Jesus; they were from different branches of the Aramaic family, the Palestinian being in the Western branch and the Syriac being in the Eastern. This would be like the difference between Gothic and Old Norse - both in the Germanic family of languages, but different branches (Old Norse in the Northern Branch and Gothic in the Eastern), and while they might be able to understand each other somewhat, it wouldn't be anywhere near complete understanding, due to differences that culture and environment (such as loanwords from neighboring non-Germanic languages). Add to that that Palestinian Aramaic was antique compared to 2nd Century (the Diatessaron) and 4th Century (the Peshitta) Syriac, and you end up looking at that "same language" claim with a large handfull of salt.

Still, the Peshitta is the Biblical translation of choice for the non-Byzantine derived Eastern churches, and in that function there can be no problem with that. The issue I'm addressing in this post comes from a particular translation of the Matthean "Lord's Prayer" passages by a particular person. First, let's look at the Syriac text (I have to use a graphic image version because apparently the Web doesn't recognize Estrangelo script):

My translation of this is:

9) Pray therefore like this: Our father in heaven, hallowed be your name.
10) Your kingdom come, your will be done, as in heaven so on earth.
11) Give us this day the bread we require.
12) And forgive us our offenses as we also have forgiven those who have offended us.
13) And do not bring us into trial, but deliver us from the evil one. [For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever.]

[Note: that last bit in brackets at the end of verse 13 is one of my prime arguments against the Peshitta being more "authentic" than the Greek texts. It's actually a Greek doxology from the Greek liturgy, added to make sure everybody saying it knew it was a prayer. It's not a Syriac addition, it's a Greek one!]

Now that's pretty straightforward and except for the liturgical doxology tacked onto the end, it pretty much follows the Greek version. But just in case anybody distrusts my translation, here's the translation of the same verses (minus the introductory "Pray therefore like this...") by George Lamsa, Syriac scholar, Aramaic Primacist, and the man who first introduced the Peshitta to western audience:

Our Father in Heaven, hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.
Give us bread for our needs from day to day.
And forgive us our offenses, as we have forgiven our offenders.
And do not let us enter into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever.

See? Basically the same words. But...

There's another Aramaic Primacist who has a version of the Lord's Prayer that sounds nothing like this. In fact, it's not really a "translation" at all, more a paraphrase, or even more accurately a commentary. This is by Dr. Neil Douglas-Klotz, who fancies himself a modern-day Sufi and who imposes a metaphysical New Age philosophy on his Syriac translations. Which is fine in and of itself, except that he bills his translations as "translated directly from the original Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus." Except that it's not, it's ostensibly translated from the 4th Century (and later) Syriac Peshitta and the words he uses in his translation have little or nothing to do with the Syriac words of the text. You be the judge:

O, Birther of the Cosmos, focus your light within us -- make it useful
Create your reign of unity now
Your one desire then acts with ours,
As in all light,
So in all forms,
Grant us what we need each day in bread and insight:
Loose the cords of mistakes binding us,
As we release the strands we hold of other's guilt.
Don't let surface things delude us,
But free us from what holds us back.
From you is born all ruling will,
The power and the life to do,
The song that beautifies all,
From age to age it renews.
I affirm this with my whole being.

Now do you see anything but a mere whiff of a nod towards the original Syriac text in this? No, me neither. This is pure, unadulterated New Age metaphysics, and this guy is using the Peshitta to push it. Whether I agree with his take on this is immaterial; as I said above, I probably would never have even noticed this if he had billed it as his own, personal commentary on the Lord's Prayer, which is what it is. But he had to bill it as "translated directly from the original Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus." And that it's not, as anyone can plainly see. It basically puts him in the same class as Erasmus, willing to twist Holy Writ to serve his own ideological purposes. And in the world of Biblical scholarship, that's a big no-no!

© 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Looking at the Beatitudes

Last week a friend on Gather.com published an article about the Sermon on the Mount and asked what certain phrases really meant. As someone who reads Koiné Greek and who has also been involved with Biblical Studies for a good long while, I thought I'd lay out some of the things I've come up with, and also discuss some of the existing scholarship on these.

First some decisions had to be made. My friend was dealing specifically with some of the Beatitudes, so I decided to keep it at that rather than tackle the whole Sermon on the Mount. There are also two versions of this sermon, one in Matthew 5 and the other in Luke 6. I chose to go with the Lukan version. Both versions are obviously derived from a common source; they share intent and in places identical wording.

Most contemporary Biblical scholars accept the existence, based on internal textual evidence, of a common "Sayings Gospel", a basic list of the words of Jesus as remembered by those who were around and which were passed down (orally at first) in the early Christian community. Early German scholars called this the "Q" document, from the German word Quelle - source. The authors of Luke and Matthew seem to have shared this document as their primary source.

I'm going with Luke for the Beatitudes rather than Matthew because the author of Luke seems to have stuck closer to the source; the wording is simpler and more terse in Luke while the author of Matthew seems to have done some serious editing, adding to the verses shared with Luke, adding whole new verses, and leaving out other, and in my view very crucial, verses. Luke follows classic Jewish oratorical style - reversal: positive/negative, praise/condemnation, congratulating/warning. The author of Matthew eliminates the reversal pattern by leaving out the negative and ignores the whole original point.

So let's go to the text. First, here's Luke 6:20 - 26 in the original Greek:

20) και αυτος επαρας τους οφθαλμους αυτου εις τους μαθητας αυτου ελεγεν μακαριοι οι πτωχοι οτι υμετερα εστιν η βασιλεια του θεου
21) μακαριοι οι πεινωντες νυν οτι χορτασθησεσθε μακαριοι οι κλαιοντες νυν οτι γελασετε
22) μακαριοι εστε οταν μισησωσιν υμας οι ανθρωποι και οταν αφορισωσιν υμας και ονειδισωσιν και εκβαλωσιν το ονομα υμων ως πονηρον ενεκα του υιου του ανθρωπου
23) χαρητε εν εκεινη τη ημερα και σκιρτησατε ιδου γαρ ο μισθος υμων πολυς εν τω ουρανω κατα τα αυτα γαρ εποιουν τοις προφηταις οι πατερες αυτων
24) πλην ουαι υμιν τοις πλουσιοις οτι απεχετε την παρακλησιν υμων
25) ουαι υμιν οι εμπεπλησμενοι νυν οτι πεινασετε ουαι οι γελωντες νυν οτι πενθησετε και κλαυσετε
26) ουαι οταν καλως υμας ειπωσιν παντες οι ανθρωποι κατα τα αυτα γαρ εποιουν τοις ψευδοπροφηταις οι πατερες αυτων

And then here's my own translation of the Greek:

20) And he raised his eyes to his listeners and preached: Congratulations, you poor, for God's domain belongs to you.
21) Congratulations, you who starve now, for you will be filled. Congratulations, you who weep and wail now, for you will laugh.
22) Congratulations to you when people detest you and exclude you, and rail at you and drive you out and call you evil because of the Son of Man!
23) Rejoice on that day and leap for joy! Behold, your reward in heaven will be abundant. Remember that their ancestors treated the prophets the same.
24) But beware you wealthy, for you've already received your consolation.
25) Beware you who are filled now, for you will famish. Beware you who laugh now, for you will mourn and wail aloud.
26) Beware whenever everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors regarded the false prophets.

This is much easier to understand than the version in Matthew, because the full pattern of reversal language used in Luke is absent in Matthew. This is the full "the last shall be first and the first, last" treatment laid out loud and clear. You lucky man, you're poor, and that means that God is going to give you everything. But you rich guy, you've already gotten all you're going to get. This is classic Jewish prophetic oratory. It rings like a bell!

It's also a vision of Jesus that many Christians are afraid to deal with. It exalts the poor and powerless and it warns those who are complacent with the status quo that they're heading for a fall. This vision of Jesus condemns the disparity between rich and poor and calls Christians to fix that disparity. If you're the kind of Christian who goes to church every Sunday, tithes, maybe even serves on the church board or the altar guild, and thinks this is all it takes to be a "good Christian", then this vision of Jesus will scare the willies out of you. There's nothing smug or self-satisfied about what he calls his followers to do. He wants to shake things up, turn the world upside down and give it a good tumbling. Stasis, status quo, are the enemies of the spirit; so says this vision of Jesus. A friend of mine who was an Episcopalian priest who considered Daniel Berrigan his role model used to say: "If you're a minister of God and you're not in trouble with the authorities, you're not doing your job."

On the other hand, this vision of Jesus also doesn't sit well with the Christian Right, and you won't notice people like Pat Robertson or James Dobson or any other of their gang preaching this vision of Jesus. Why? Because the very people they condemn, the Jesus of this vision raises up. And what they have become are the very things this Jesus warns to beware of. No, I doubt you'll ever hear James Dobson preach this Jesus. I also think Mr. Dobson would probably be very frightened if this Jesus ever appeared on his doorstep.

That's what I think the whole point of the Beatitudes is - to point out that the world is out of balance and needs to be re-balanced. It gives the poor and oppressed a source of hope, and it warns of disaster for the rich, the powerful, and the complacent. And what more appropriate message for the times we now live in?

© 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Homosexuality, Marriage, the Bible, and the US Constitution

(First published on Gather.com on 11/11/08)

[Note: I am neither a Christian nor am I gay. I have no vested interest in this issue, only a highly developed sense of justice and the willingness to use what expertise I have in the interest of setting the record straight when one side of a debate resorts to exaggerations, fudging facts, and building straw man arguments. And I admit up front that I'm in favor of legalizing same sex marriages; I see absolutely no harm in them. In fact I see much benefit, both to the institution of marriage and to the fabric of society.]

The national debate on same sex marriages seems to have reached something of a crisis point. California voters, under the influence of out-of-state funding and resources from conservative religious organizations, narrowly passed Proposition 8, which proposes an amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman, which essentially overturns the state's previous legalizing of same sex marriages and renders null and void thousands of existing marriages under the old rule. Several other states have passed similar measures. Currently, only two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, recognize same sex marriages, and legislation pro and con is being debated in almost every state in the union.

The argument in favor of same sex marriage is really very simple: it harms no one, it concerns only the two people wishing to be married, in infringes on no one else's rights, and it's time that gays and lesbians were granted full citizenship. It's the argument against that I wish to address here, because that argument is built on several false premises and exaggerations. It sets up straw man arguments where the situations warned of don't (and can't under US law) exist.

The first claim is that the Bible condemns homosexuality. In fact there are only three passages that have anything to do with same sex activities. As it's evangelical Christian groups who are the main opposition to same sex marriages, the first two passages, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, are not relevant to the argument, at least for Christians. I'll get to the reasons why in a minute. But first I want to address the only passage in the New Testament which addresses same sex sexual activity, Romans 1:26 - 27:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

The problem with the use of this passage is that it's taken way out of context, and those who use it totally ignore the implications of the original Greek text.

Romans 1, starting with verse 21, is Paul's denunciation of Roman Christians who abandoned their Christianity and went back to their old Roman polytheistic ways. Here's the whole relevant section:

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
- Romans 1:21 - 31

As you can see, not only does he point to homosexual activity being a result of their reverted loyalty to their former ways, he also lists other character defects such as boasting, murder, and lying that result from their reversion.

A careful reading of the original Greek text of verses 26 and 27 shows that Paul isn't speaking about sexual activities between two loving individuals, but rather the frenzied sex characteristic of fertility rituals, whipped up by fervent chanting and alcohol and other drugs. The phrase translated above as "dishonorable passions" is pathe atimias, which is a phrase used in other Greek documents to describe the frenzied sex of these rituals. Paul also uses words/phrases like phusiken (natural), para phusin (unnatural), exekauthesan en te orexei ( literally "enflamed in the sexual excitement" and translated above as "consumed with passion"), metellaxan (exchanged), and aphentes (laid aside, left, translated above as "gave up"). What he's describing here, especially with the use of these particular words, is people who are by natural orientation heterosexual, being carried away by the frenzy and disorientation of the fertility ritual and basically having sex with the nearest warm body. A fuller description and development of this argument can be found online here.

So the passage which conservative Christians always point to as Paul's condemnation of homosexuality is really no such thing, but rather a condemnation of the excesses of the religious practices of the Greeks and Romans. The fact that most of the ministers and other higher ups in these religious bodies are educated in Greek and know very well what the real meaning of these verses is makes them disingenuous at best, and outright dishonest at worst.

Now about those verses in Leviticus... For a Christian condemning homosexuality, these verses are irrelevant. Why? Because Christianity has declared, from the Second Century CE and onward, that the Hebrew scriptures, called the "Old Testament" in later times, are to be considered just history, a "prequel" to the Christian dispensation, if you will. Doctrinal instruction can only be determined from those documents written by followers of Jesus the Christ - the books that comprise the "New Testament" and , for Catholics and the various Eastern Orthodox churches, the writings of various early Church Fathers.

How that particular situation came about is fairly simple. Christianity developed from a Jewish culture, and the earliest Christians were all Jews. But after a little time gentiles (Greeks, Romans, and other non-Jews) began to follow Jesus as well, most of that coming through the efforts of Paul of Tarsus. Many of the old-school Jewish Christians wanted the gentiles to get circumcised and follow Jewish law. But Paul argued that the Law of Moses was God's special gift to the Jews, and to the Jews only, and that God had other arrangements with the other peoples of the world. In his own opinion the coming of Jesus as the Christ was that arrangement for gentiles, and it would be unfair, if not blasphemous, to require them to adhere to the Law of Moses.

Eventually gentiles outnumbered Jews in the Christian community, and after the end of the First Century there were no longer any claiming to be Jews in the community. So the argument of Paul became central to the early church, and it was determined that the Law of Moses wasn't applicable to Christians, and indeed that the Christian scriptures superseded the Hebrew scriptures. It became dogma that: "The Old Testament is history, and the New Testament is doctrine." Martin Luther and the other leading figures of the Protestant Reformation made that one of the centerpieces of Reformation theology.

So the use of the verses in Leviticus can't be used by Christians to condemn homosexuality because all varieties of Christianity reject the Old Testament as a basis for determining doctrine. In fact it's common to hear evangelicals throw out the accusation of "legalism" and "legalistic" when someone pays too much attention to the Old Testament (for instance the common accusation of "legalism" directed at Seventh Day Adventists who celebrate the sabbath on the Jewish day, Saturday, rather than on Sunday). So it's a no-no no matter what flavor of Christianity you adhere to.

Another argument the opponents of single sex marriage make is that allowing it will "redefine marriage"; they go on to state that the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman. But it does no such thing. There are plenty of references to marriage in the New Testament, but in all cases they refer to the preference for marriage over unlicensed partnering, often referred to as "adultery". But nowhere is marriage actually defined as anything other than the recognized legalization of sexual partnership. Gender doesn't come up.

As to redefining marriage, all you have to do is Google "marriage" to see just how many definitions of marriage there are in the world. The definition of marriage as one man and one woman is just one among thousands of definitions. So accusations of redefinition are more than a little disingenuous.

All of these religious arguments are moot, however, in the face of the US Constitution. The First Amendment of the Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The key to the argument against the opposition to same sex marriage is what's called the Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The best explanation of the Establishment Clause I've ever read come from Wikipedia's entry on the First Amendment:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, under the incorporation doctrine, certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".

And there it is: according to the US Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court of the US the government can't create and enforce legislation based on the doctrines of a particular religion. Given that there are world religions which have no objection to same sex marriage (and there are adherents of those religions who are citizens of the US), and given that even the many denominations of Christianity can't agree on the subject, creating laws that forbid same sex marriage falls into that category; it would be advancing one religion over all others, and you just can't do that in this country.

Evangelicals often argue that this violates their freedom of religion, but it doesn't. Evangelicals can bar gays and lesbians from their congregations, and they can refuse to officiate at a same sex wedding or allow one to take place in their churches. What they can't do is force others who do not believe the same as they to follow suit. Why can't they be satisfied with that? What other believers (or non-believers) do outside their (the Evangelicals') congregations is none of their business.

Another thing I've heard from Evangelicals is that the various rulings and proposed laws allowing same sex marriage carry measures to punish churches who refuse to allow same sex marriages. No such measures exist; it's a straw man argument constructed specifically to scare the general believing populace. The same First Amendment that protects everybody else from being forced to obey laws adhering to Evangelical theology protects Evangelicals vice versa. If you Google on "same sex marriage Massachusetts", "same sex marriage Connecticut", or "same sex marriage California", you'll see that no such measures were ever proposed. Go ahead, I'll wait.

In conclusion (yes, I'm done now), there is no legitimate reason for not legalizing same sex marriage. It's not condemned in the Bible, nor is general homosexuality. And making same sex marriage illegal is a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. There really is no excuse for this opposition except one - bigotry. That may be harsh, but it's the truth. It's mean-spirited and cruel and it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the words of Jesus, which were all about love. You want to be a real Christian and follow Jesus? Let gays and lesbians marry. I'll bet you it's what Jesus would do.

© 2008 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Re-discovering the Divine Mother in the Torah

[Originally published on Gather.com, April 27, 2008]

Let me show you something interesting.

In the King James Version of the Bible Deuteronomy 32:18 is worded this way: "Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee." Note well the verbs used here: to beget (to father, to sire) and to form. Both masculine expressions of the act of creation.

Why is this interesting? Because here is the Hebrew original from which it was translated:

transliteration: tsuur ylaadkhaa teshii wa-tishkah! el mh!ollekhaa.

A more accurate translation of this would be: "You were unmindful of the Rock that brought you forth, and you forgot the God who labored to give birth to you." The Hebrew verbs used are yalad (to bear, to bring forth) and h!iyl (to writhe, to twist, to be in labor, to give birth to), both feminine expressions of the act of creation.

How did such a discrepancy come about? Ah, therein lies a tale!

Long ago in the mists of time the ancient Hebrews were polytheists, like everyone else in the world at the time. Their monotheism based on the High God YHWH emerged only gradually, and even after it triumphed as the "official" national religion a polytheistic folk religion existed side by side with it. When a scriptural canon was eventually compiled and written, elements of the old polytheism, including expressions of the Divine Mother, survived embedded in the text, due to the magnitude of the job and the wide diversity of the materials being compiled. Deuteronomy 32:18 is an example of those old expressions slipping through the editorial net.

Much later on Christianity, which grew out of Judaism, claimed the Hebrew canon as the "prequel" to their own canon. But Christianity was virulently misogynistic; the early Church Fathers, most notably Augustine of Hippo, even argued that women had no souls. Naturally a religion so anti-female couldn't accomodate the idea of the Divine Feminine, so translations of the Hebrew canon buried the Mother under masculine terminology.

[Note: Oddly enough the Greek Orthodox canon preserves those expressions of the Divine Feminine. There was a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Tanakh (the Hebrew name for the Hebrew Bible) which came out of Egypt and was called the Septuagint, or LXX, and was intended to be used by Jews living in the Graeco-Roman world outside the traditional Hebrew homeland. The Greek church adopted the LXX as its "Old Testament" unmodified, and so preserved the original intent of the Jewish canon. Deuteronomy 32:18 runs thus in the LXX:

transliteration: theon ton gennesanta se engkatelipes kai epelathou theou tou trephontos se.

This translates as: "The god who brought you forth you abandoned, and you forgot the God who nurtured you." As you can see, the feminine expression survives.]

Since the 1950s Biblical translation has gotten more accurate and honest. The expressions of the Divine Mother embedded in the Hebrew text are being restored, at least in most English translations. The ESV (English Standard Version), which is the 21st Century update of the Revised Standard Version of the 1950s, translates Deuteronomy 32:18 thus: "You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth."

Hopefully Christianity, which has accepted the Father all along, is now beginning to discover the Mother as well. After all, a healthy, functioning Family of Humanity needs both the Mother and the Father, something the rest of us accepted long ago.