It’s All About Who You Know

"Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, ‘With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.’" (NIV)

"Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, ‘I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.’" (NASB)

"Adam slept with Eve his wife. She conceived and had Cain. She said, ‘I’ve gotten a man, with GOD’s help!’" (The Message)

"The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have produced a man with the help of the LORD.’" (NAB)

"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.’" (ESV)

Genesis 4:1

Why have I listed five versions of the same verse? I believe they demonstrate differing viewpoints on translational accuracy in the Bible.  The first three more clearly convey in modern language what Adam and Eve did.  On the other hand, the last one maintains more of the meanings found in the Hebrew.  (I do not mean this as an apologia for the ESV.  I’m well aware of the many faults that are not apparent in this particular verse. )  "To know" is idiomatic and obviously denotes sexual intercourse.  It means more than that, though.  It  connotes intimacy and the notion of becoming "one flesh".  "Cain" sounds like the Hebrew for "gotten".  Strangley, more of the translations maintain this parallel.  But I digress; it is "to know" that interests me today.

Later authors of Scripture utilized the intimate and marital implications of "knowing" when writing about the relationship between the LORD and Israel (and ultimately the Church). Take today’s reading of Hosea 2:16-17,21-22 for instance (verse numbers vary across translations).  At the end, God tells the people of Israel that they will someday "know" Him.  This is not mere intellectual knowledge or recognition.  The preceding verses give clear context that the LORD will take Israel as His bride.  He and they would be intimately joined in one flesh.  Indeed, as the gospel reading (Mark 2:18-22) indicates, Christ is the bridegroom that Israel waited for.

There are countless examples of marital imagery in Scripture.  Many, if not most, utlilize the subtleties of "knowing", even where Greek is employed rather than Hebrew.  By the mere mention of humanity knowing God, an author could recall for readers/listeners the notion of marital intimacy with our Creator.  Sadly, in their zeal to make Scripture as appealing and accessible to everyday Joes, a worthwhile and important goal to be sure, many translators have obscured such allusions.  In those translations, people "have sex", "make love", or "have relations", without expressing the intimate "one flesh" aspect of knowing someone (i.e., to know them as well as one knows one’s own body), and humanity merely recognizes, remembers, or intellectually assents to God, without becoming "one flesh" with Him.

One may see a current application of this imagery in the lengthy conversation about NFP started by an earlier post on this blog.   After seemingly endless exchanges concerning the nature of NFP’s means, intent, and ends, DSA offers the following insight and challenging question.

"[I]ntellectualization can be a powerful defense and a very fun one at that. We can spend great deal of time talking about such matters, many very important matters worthy of our consideration, and even point to the astute observations of theologians and popes to add weight to our perspective. However, behind all the chatter and along with all the important and even valid judgments can reside a powerful resistance to embracing the far more challenging truth – the self-emptying and self-sacrificing love of Christ crucified – the love that Christ has for his Bride the Church It is this love that must form our judgments and that must be the measure of our actions and behaviors. What light do these realities shed on our discussion of NFP, abstinence, and the relationship between husband and wife? What limitations might they reveal in our thinking?"

Christ, the bridegroom, demonstrated His great love for His bride, the Church, when He laid down His life for her.  From His birth, He was betrothed to her.  At His crucifixion, He married her and with His last words, "It is finished", He consummated the marriage.   Every time we receive the Eucharist, we become one flesh with Christ.  We are sacramentally recalling our marriage to Him, just as a human couple recalls their sacramental unity when they come together in intercourse.  Christ holds nothing back from us in the Eucharist.  He is present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.  God’s seed, grace, is given to members of the Church, in whom it might take root, if we provide "good soil", and grow into faith, a faith that enables us to go and make new disciples, new members of the Universal Church.  Likewise, a husband’s seed is given to his wife, in whom it might “take root” and grow into another human being, another member of the domestic church.  To take God’s command to "go forth and multiply" seriously, we should imitate the self-emptying and self-sacrificing love He offers when He "knows" us in the Eucharist.

"This is my body, given for you."

This entry was posted in essays, editorials, fisks, and rants and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on by .

About Funky Dung

Who is Funky Dung? 29-year-old grad student in Intelligent Systems (A.I.) at the University of Pittsburgh. I consider myself to be politically moderate and independent and somewhere between a traditional and neo-traditional Catholic. I was raised Lutheran, spent a number of years as an agnostic, and joined the Catholic Church at the 2000 Easter Vigil. Why Funky Dung? I haven't been asked this question nearly as many times as you or I might expect. Funky Dung is a reference to an obscure Pink Floyd song. On the album Atom Heart Mother, there is a track called Atom Heart Mother Suite. It's broken up into movements, like a symphony, and one of the movements is called Funky Dung. I picked that nickname a long time ago (while I was still in high school I think), shortly after getting an internet connection for the first time. To me it means "cool/neat/groovy/spiffy stuff/crap/shiznit", as in "That's some cool stuff, dude!" Whence Ales Rarus? I used to enjoy making people guess what this means, but I've decided to relent and make it known to all. Ales Rarus is a Latin play on words. "Avis rarus" means "a rare bird" and carries similar meaning to "an odd fellow". "Ales" is another Latin word for bird that carries connotations of omens, signs of the times, and/or augery. If you want to get technical, both "avis" and "ales" are feminine (requiring "rara", but they can be made masculine in poetry (which tends to breaks lots of rules). I decided I'd rather have a masculine name in Latin. ;) Yeah, I'm a nerd. So what? :-P Wherefore blog? It is my intention to "teach in order to lead others to faith" by being always "on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful" through the "use of the communications media". I also act knowing that I "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors [my] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and [I] have a right to make [my] opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward [my and their] pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (adapted from CCC 904-907) Statement of Faith I have been baptized and confirmed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I, therefore, renounce Satan; I renounce all his works; I renounce all his allurements. I hold and profess all that is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. Having been buried with Christ unto death and raised up with him unto a new life, I promise to live no longer for myself or for that world which is the enemy of God but for him who died for me and rose again, serving God, my heavenly Father, faithfully and unto death in the holy Catholic Church. I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is, I promote and defend authentic Catholic Teaching and Faith in union with Christ and His Church and in union with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter. Thanks be unto Thee, O my God, for all Thy infinite goodness, and, especially, for the love Thou hast shown unto me at my Confirmation. I Give Thee thanks that Thou didst then send down Thy Holy Spirit unto my soul with all His gifts and graces. May He take full possession of me for ever. May His divine unction cause my face to shine. May His heavenly wisdom reign in my heart. May His understanding enlighten my darkness. May His counsel guide me. May His knowledge instruct me. May His piety make me fervent. May His divine fear keep me from all evil. Drive from my soul, O Lord, all that may defile it. Give me grace to be Thy faithful soldier, that having fought the good fight of faith, I may be brought to the crown of everlasting life, through the merits of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. Behind the Curtain: an Interview With Funky Dung (Thursday, March 03, 2005) I try to avoid most memes that make their way 'round the blogosphere (We really do need a better name, don't we?), but some are worth participating in. Take for instance the "interview game" that's the talk o' the 'sphere. I think it's a great way to get to know the people in neighborhood. Who are the people in your neighborhood? In your neighborhod? In your neigh-bor-hoo-ood...*smack* Sorry, Sesame Street flashback. Anyhow, I saw Jeff "Curt Jester" Miller's answers and figured since he's a regular reader of mine he'd be a good interviewer. Without further ado, here are my answers to his questions. 1. Being that your pseudonym Funky Dung was chosen from a Pink Floyd track on Atom Heart Mother, what is you favorite Pink Floyd song and why? Wow. That's a tuffy. It's hard to pick out a single favorite. Pink Floyd isn't really a band known for singles. They mostly did album rock and my appreciation of them is mostly of a gestalt nature. If I had to pick one, though, it'd be "Comfortably Numb". I get chills up my spine every time I hear it and if it's been long enough since the last time, I get midty-eyed. I really don't know why. That's a rather unsatisfying answer for an interview, so here are the lyrics to a Rush song. It's not their best piece of music, but the lyrics describe me pretty well.

New World Man He's a rebel and a runner He's a signal turning green He's a restless young romantic Wants to run the big machine He's got a problem with his poisons But you know he'll find a cure He's cleaning up his systems To keep his nature pure Learning to match the beat of the old world man Learning to catch the heat of the third world man He's got to make his own mistakes And learn to mend the mess he makes He's old enough to know what's right But young enough not to choose it He's noble enough to win the world But weak enough to lose it --- He's a new world man... He's a radio receiver Tuned to factories and farms He's a writer and arranger And a young boy bearing arms He's got a problem with his power With weapons on patrol He's got to walk a fine line And keep his self-control Trying to save the day for the old world man Trying to pave the way for the third world man He's not concerned with yesterday He knows constant change is here today He's noble enough to know what's right But weak enough not to choose it He's wise enough to win the world But fool enough to lose it --- He's a new world man...
2. What do you consider your most important turning point from agnosticism to the Catholic Church. At some point in '99, I started attending RCIA at the Pittsburgh Oratory. I mostly went to ask a lot of obnoxious Protestant questions. Or at least that's what I told myself. I think deep down I wanted desperately to have faith again. At that point I think I'd decided that if any variety of Christianity had the Truth, the Catholic Church did. Protestantism's wholesale rejection of 1500 years of tradition didn't sit well with me, even as a former Lutheran. During class one week, Sister Bernadette Young (who runs the program) passed out thin booklet called "Handbook for Today's Catholic". One paragraph in that book spoke to me and I nearly cried as I read it.
"A person who is seeking deeper insight into reality may sometimes have doubts, even about God himself. Such doubts do not necessarily indicate lack of faith. They may be just the opposite - a sign of growing faith. Faith is alive and dynamic. It seeks, through grace, to penetrate into the very mystery of God. If a particular doctrine of faith no longer 'makes sense' to a person, the person should go right on seeking. To know what a doctrine says is one thing. To gain insight into its meaning through the gift of understanding is something else. When in doubt, 'Seek and you will find.' The person who seeks y reading, discussing, thinking, or praying eventually sees the light. The person who talks to God even when God is 'not there' is alive with faith."
At the end of class I told Sr. Bernadette that I wanted to enter the Church at the next Easter vigil. 3. If you were a tree what kind of, oh sorry about that .. what is the PODest thing you have ever done? I set up WikiIndex, a clearinghouse for reviews of theological books, good, bad, and ugly. It has a long way to go, but it'll be cool when it's finished. :) 4. What is your favorite quote from Venerable John Henry Newman? "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt." 5. If you could ban one hymn from existence, what would it be? That's a tough one. As a member of the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of Marty Haugen and David Haas, there are obviously a lot of songs that grate on my nerves. If I had to pick one, though, I'd probably pick "Sing of the Lord's Goodness" by Ernie Sands.

9 thoughts on “It’s All About Who You Know

  1. Jordan

    This is one of the most important linguistic features, as “knowing” the Lord is the goal of life: at the end we shall know him even as we are known. This intimacy which you have explained so well is a central theme of the Christian theological tradition.

  2. Jordan

    Not to put a damper on DSA’s post by introducing trivialities, but I must observe that “it’s all about whom you know,” old boy, not “who“. The advantage of using this construction, lest you accuse me of antiquarianism, is that it makes clear that “who” is the direct object. In this case, that’s not so difficult to figure out, but in other cases it is, and so a habit of using “whom” will serve you well in your writing. Pip pip.

  3. Funky Dung

    1) While I tend to be a fan of “whom”, it’s falling into disuse.
    2) Lot’s of people have heard that phrase in its grammatically incorrent form.
    3) I’m moving DSA’s comment to the NFP post (seems to fit better there).

  4. Tamilda

    There is certainly some beautiful midrash about “knowing” and the connection with good marital sex.

    I don’t know that I would be too hard on translators, though (despite my love for a literal translation), because the same verb is used for rape (Judges 19:25) and rape by sodomy (Genesis 19:5). I think the word simply means to know someone carnally, as much as we might wish for it to have a more spiritual and uplifting definition.

  5. Funky Dung

    My understanding is that the word was more concretely associated with carnal knowledge early in its use and gradually accumalated more nuanced uses. I’m no linguist or philologist, but it seems to me that by the time the gospels and epistles were written, the word would have evoked more complex and altruistic notions than mere copulation.

  6. Tamilda

    Oh, I think the nuances have always been there, at least I hope they have! I think you have the correct interpretation of the word “know” and that the question rather is why it was used in the rape cases (instead of “lie with”, for example).

    I don’t know the answer to that, but I do see how a translator might choose to use another word for having sex in order to use the same English word each time the Hebrew word “know” was used in a sexual way.

    I don’t think the Hebrew approach to sexuality was like the Greek one. From what I’ve gathered, the Hebrew view seems to focus more on body (as seen in Songs, for example), whereas the Greek is focused more on mind, on “elevating” sex beyond the physical.

    There are bound to be differences in interpretation and the resulting translations.

  7. Jeremy Pierce

    Actually, the parallel between “gotten” and Cain’s name isn’t preserved in any of these. She’d have to say “I’ve Cained a man” or name him Gotten or something if you wanted to preserve that. (Either would be inaccurate anyway, since Cain’s name means something like metal-working, and it just sounds like the word for “gotten”. It’s a wordplay, not an etymology in the modern sense.)

    On “who” vs. “whom”, Jordan is simply wrong. Funky is right. The supposedly right “whom” used to be correct, but it’s just not English anymore. There are some places where it could be ok to do either. The word isn’t dead yet. But “about whom you know” is just not correct grammar anymore in most dialects, English teachers and archaists like William Safire notwithstanding. I agree that something is lost in terms of clarity, but that’s how things go. We’ve lost clarity before, and we’ll keep doing so as language chances.

  8. Pingback: Happy Catholic: 02.2006

  9. Pingback: Parableman: Adam Knew His Wife

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *