10/08/2004 05:49:00 AM

{personal archive post}
In the comments of, The Bible as a She?
__________

the singular personification of a series of loosely-coupled texts retrospectively bound together is interesting for a moment, but quickly becomes nonsense (at least it would in the communities i find myself in).

the texts are not a her, a him or a they. the texts are a series of situated its. wanting the bible to be seen as "more than a text" is wanting it to be something it literally is not. it is interesting that you suggest that you want this so that "she" can be "part of the community." how are these texts not already a part of your community?

i think that personifying the texts of a community by calling them a “she” is different from calling a country or the church a she. the latter are personified communities of people. the former the tangible artifacts these people left.

just as the united states constitution, the federalist papers and the autobiography of benjamin franklin are not personified, but the country of the people who created these works is, so the torah, the writings, the prophets, the gospels and the letters are not personified, but the assembly of the people who created these works is. the church and the texts that she has produced are different in kind and, i would suggest, should be treated as such in our language.