-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Could someone tell me the necessity in changing Gen. 3:16 in the ESV?
- Thread starter Squidward
- Start date
Read Genesis 3:16 from Biblehub.com to see how many different ways the verse is stated.
Genesis 3:16 (biblehub.com)
Also read all the way down to see the actual Hebrew words and the actual and best meaning.
Genesis 3:16 (NASB 2020)
Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
Genesis 3:16 (AV 1873)
and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Genesis 3:16b (ESV 2016)
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
Genesis 3:16 (BHS)
אֶֽל־הָאִשָּׁ֣ה אָמַ֗ר הַרְבָּ֤ה אַרְבֶּה֙ עִצְּבֹונֵ֣ךְ וְהֵֽרֹנֵ֔ךְ בְּעֶ֖צֶב תֵּֽלְדִ֣י בָנִ֑ים וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ וְה֖וּא יִמְשָׁל־בָּֽךְ׃
It's a rather recent (and perhaps disturbing) translational shift.
The first problem revolves around the word תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ (teshuqah)
It's not a common word; used only 3 times in Scripture (Genesis 3:16, Genesis 4:7 and Song of Songs 7:10),
It's typically translated "your desire".
The BDB Lexicon comments on the word, "but how explain the unusual and striking word in MT?"
I believe the impetus for the change was first initiated by an article from the Westminster Theological Seminary titled, WHAT IS A WOMAN'S DESIRE by Susan T. Foh [LINK]
Although it's short, rather technical article, difficult to get through if you are intimidated by the Hebrew text.
My exceedingly concise summary:
In the past, translators believed the word was related to an Arabic word, meaning "desire, excite desire."
So that's the foundation of the problem translating Genesis 3:16.
The second problem concerns the translation of the Hebrew preposition el.
The Hebrew Lexicon, HALOT lists 9 different possibilities (greatly and quickly abbreviated below)
אֶל: ...basic meaning towards;
—1. used with actions and events directed towards something, like to go, to come, to throw Lv 1:16, to bring Gn 2:19, to look Is 8:22, to hear Gn 16:11; ...
—2. of direction towards something: Nu 12:8; Jr 15:1, 2C 16:9;
—3. אֶל often stands for → עַל and vice versa, esp. in Jr Ezk .... עַל, but also indicates movement towards something Gn 4:8 Is 2:4 3:8 Jos 10:6 Ju 20:30
—4. up to, against Jr 51:9 Jb 40:23; → אֶל אַמָּה up to a cubit in height Gn 6:16;
—5. in, into: אֶל־הַיָּם into the sea Jon 1:5, אֶל־מְעָרַת inside the cave Gn 23:19, אֶל־קוֹצִים in thorns Jr 4:3, אֶל־הַכֵּלִים among the baggage 1S 10:22;
—6. concisely for rest at the end of an action 1K 13:20, Jr 41:12, Gn 24:11 1S 17:3 Ezk 7:18;
—7. with verbs of accumulation 1K 10:7 (MSS עַל) and connection Da 11:23; so אֶל in addition to: Lv 18:18, La 3:41 Ezk 19:11 45:2;
—8. in consideration of: 1K 19:3 2K 7:7; Gn 20:2, 1S 4:19;Jos 15:13 17:4;
—9. compounded with other preps: behind 2K 9:18, under 1K 8:6, inside 2K 11:15, outside Lv 4:12; —Jr 10:2 and Hos 12:5 ; Ps 7:7 rd. אֵלִי; Jb 5:5 ...
Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 50–51.
So IMHO, the issue becomes — Masculine domination over women as a result of sin vs. feminine submission due to creational position.
How do the differing translations affect your answer to the question?
Rob
Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
Genesis 3:16 (AV 1873)
and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Genesis 3:16b (ESV 2016)
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
Genesis 3:16 (BHS)
אֶֽל־הָאִשָּׁ֣ה אָמַ֗ר הַרְבָּ֤ה אַרְבֶּה֙ עִצְּבֹונֵ֣ךְ וְהֵֽרֹנֵ֔ךְ בְּעֶ֖צֶב תֵּֽלְדִ֣י בָנִ֑ים וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ וְה֖וּא יִמְשָׁל־בָּֽךְ׃
It's a rather recent (and perhaps disturbing) translational shift.
The first problem revolves around the word תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ (teshuqah)
It's not a common word; used only 3 times in Scripture (Genesis 3:16, Genesis 4:7 and Song of Songs 7:10),
It's typically translated "your desire".
The BDB Lexicon comments on the word, "but how explain the unusual and striking word in MT?"
I believe the impetus for the change was first initiated by an article from the Westminster Theological Seminary titled, WHAT IS A WOMAN'S DESIRE by Susan T. Foh [LINK]
Although it's short, rather technical article, difficult to get through if you are intimidated by the Hebrew text.
My exceedingly concise summary:
In the past, translators believed the word was related to an Arabic word, meaning "desire, excite desire."
1) The author however suggests that the word is related to another Arabic word سَاقَ (saqa) meaning "to urge, drive on, or impel." (B1)
2) The NT seems to imply that the subjugation of woman to man was the original creation order (in contrast to the consequences of the curse/disobedience),
(ref. 1 Corinthians 11:3; 14:34; Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1,5,6). (B2)
3) The author questions if this is really a punishment for sin if the woman willingly submits herself to the subjugation. (B3)
2) The NT seems to imply that the subjugation of woman to man was the original creation order (in contrast to the consequences of the curse/disobedience),
(ref. 1 Corinthians 11:3; 14:34; Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1,5,6). (B2)
3) The author questions if this is really a punishment for sin if the woman willingly submits herself to the subjugation. (B3)
So that's the foundation of the problem translating Genesis 3:16.
The second problem concerns the translation of the Hebrew preposition el.
The Hebrew Lexicon, HALOT lists 9 different possibilities (greatly and quickly abbreviated below)
אֶל: ...basic meaning towards;
—1. used with actions and events directed towards something, like to go, to come, to throw Lv 1:16, to bring Gn 2:19, to look Is 8:22, to hear Gn 16:11; ...
—2. of direction towards something: Nu 12:8; Jr 15:1, 2C 16:9;
—3. אֶל often stands for → עַל and vice versa, esp. in Jr Ezk .... עַל, but also indicates movement towards something Gn 4:8 Is 2:4 3:8 Jos 10:6 Ju 20:30
—4. up to, against Jr 51:9 Jb 40:23; → אֶל אַמָּה up to a cubit in height Gn 6:16;
—5. in, into: אֶל־הַיָּם into the sea Jon 1:5, אֶל־מְעָרַת inside the cave Gn 23:19, אֶל־קוֹצִים in thorns Jr 4:3, אֶל־הַכֵּלִים among the baggage 1S 10:22;
—6. concisely for rest at the end of an action 1K 13:20, Jr 41:12, Gn 24:11 1S 17:3 Ezk 7:18;
—7. with verbs of accumulation 1K 10:7 (MSS עַל) and connection Da 11:23; so אֶל in addition to: Lv 18:18, La 3:41 Ezk 19:11 45:2;
—8. in consideration of: 1K 19:3 2K 7:7; Gn 20:2, 1S 4:19;Jos 15:13 17:4;
—9. compounded with other preps: behind 2K 9:18, under 1K 8:6, inside 2K 11:15, outside Lv 4:12; —Jr 10:2 and Hos 12:5 ; Ps 7:7 rd. אֵלִי; Jb 5:5 ...
Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 50–51.
So IMHO, the issue becomes — Masculine domination over women as a result of sin vs. feminine submission due to creational position.
How do the differing translations affect your answer to the question?
Rob
It's either a punishment or a blessing. And trust me, it AIN'T a blessing being lorded over and ruled over.
The blessing comes in the New Testament when God institutes for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. And for women who have husbands who treat them with that kind of love [love in action] - it's a blessing.
Hebrew is so hard to read on the BaptistBoard.
It needs to be sized up a few times to get any definition to the lettering, even then the vowel points are generally illegible.
Reading Hebrew is for young eyes.
The root of most Semitic words generally have three consonants.
That's the word translated as "your husband" in Ge 3:16, (אִישׁ - ish - man).
In the NLT the word “control” is translated from the word "desire" for the reasons mentioned above;
the desire is a control issue.
The NLT did a very good job translating that verse.
Rob
Last edited:
These are excerpts from an earlier thread:
The rendering of Genesis 3:16 has created something of a brouhaha. I would take some issue with McKnight's contention that "This new translation of Genesis 3:16 suggests the curse against the woman is an act of God (a curse) that seals estrangement, alienation and tension between females and males. By so rendering this verse, the ESV creates the impression that females and males are contrarians with one another."
I am not convinced that Genesis 3:16b is actually a curse, at least not in the same way that the serpent is cursed. It is a consequence of sin, just as is Adam's second "curse."
The reading had already been in the margin of the ESV, so it is not strictly a "new" rendering. It dates back to 1975 and was suggested by Susan Foh. (You can read the paper at https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te.../text/articles-books/foh-womansdesire-wtj.pdf).
I have no idea which rendering is correct. It seems to me that the controversy is really between egalitarians and complementarians who have seized upon the issue as a bone of contention in a larger struggle. And, from my reading on the topic, neither rendering is a silver bullet for either side.
.....
Wayne Grudem is general editor of the ESV and an outspoken complementarian. I have no idea of the mechanics of how the new rendering made its way from the margin to the text, but I cannot help but believe that Grudem was a major factor in that decision.
Yet it seems to me (and I may be completely wrong) that the new rendering does not necessarily strengthen claims of complementarianism. Foh's explication affirms complementarianism in assuming that a gender hierarchy is assumed before the fall, but I think could also could make a case that the new rendering can also be used to defend egalitarianism — the woman will attempt to bend the man to her will and the man will attempt to rule over her, and not necessarily with kindness. This, to me, seems better to fit the parallelism of the passage; one is not necessarily the cause of the other; the whole mess is a result of the fall and will not be remedied until creation is made new again. But I admit I'm over my head on this.
ESV Changes Meaning of Genesis 3:16
The rendering of Genesis 3:16 has created something of a brouhaha. I would take some issue with McKnight's contention that "This new translation of Genesis 3:16 suggests the curse against the woman is an act of God (a curse) that seals estrangement, alienation and tension between females and males. By so rendering this verse, the ESV creates the impression that females and males are contrarians with one another."
I am not convinced that Genesis 3:16b is actually a curse, at least not in the same way that the serpent is cursed. It is a consequence of sin, just as is Adam's second "curse."
The reading had already been in the margin of the ESV, so it is not strictly a "new" rendering. It dates back to 1975 and was suggested by Susan Foh. (You can read the paper at https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te.../text/articles-books/foh-womansdesire-wtj.pdf).
I have no idea which rendering is correct. It seems to me that the controversy is really between egalitarians and complementarians who have seized upon the issue as a bone of contention in a larger struggle. And, from my reading on the topic, neither rendering is a silver bullet for either side.
.....
Wayne Grudem is general editor of the ESV and an outspoken complementarian. I have no idea of the mechanics of how the new rendering made its way from the margin to the text, but I cannot help but believe that Grudem was a major factor in that decision.
Yet it seems to me (and I may be completely wrong) that the new rendering does not necessarily strengthen claims of complementarianism. Foh's explication affirms complementarianism in assuming that a gender hierarchy is assumed before the fall, but I think could also could make a case that the new rendering can also be used to defend egalitarianism — the woman will attempt to bend the man to her will and the man will attempt to rule over her, and not necessarily with kindness. This, to me, seems better to fit the parallelism of the passage; one is not necessarily the cause of the other; the whole mess is a result of the fall and will not be remedied until creation is made new again. But I admit I'm over my head on this.
ESV Changes Meaning of Genesis 3:16
37818
Well-Known Member
Yep, that's the word translated as "your husband" in Ge 3:16, (אִישׁ - ish - man).
Genesis 3:16. אִישֵׁךְ֙
Numbers 5:20 (2x) אִישֵֽׁךְ ...you are under your husband’s authority...
Judges 14:15. אִישֵׁ֗ךְ ...Entice your husband to tell us...
Ruth 2:11. אִישֵׁ֑ךְ. ...the death of your husband has been fully told to me.
2 Kings 4:26 לְאִישֵׁ֖ךְ Is all well with your husband? (starting with a lamed)
The difference being the notation above the final kaph, ךְ֙ which is an accent mark.
The accents (or cantillation marks), are used in synagogues today to help cantors chant the Hebrew Bible.
Rob
37818
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Excellent posts by Deacon.
Believe it or not, there are fads in English Bible translation. (Not so much in missionary translation.) What happens is that some scholar comes up with an untested theory about the semantics of a Greek or Hebrew word, and translators jump on the bandwagon. This looks like a new one. I had not heard it before, but it fits the pattern.
One such fad is the Hebrew chesed (חסד), a very common word usually translated "mercy" in the more traditional translations. Various modern translations have gone with "unfailing love" or "steadfast love," pretty much by concordance (every rendering the same), but the context often points to "mercy."
Another example is in 1 Corinthians 7:1, where many modern versions (NIV, ESV, etc.) translate "touch" (Greek hapto, ἁπτω) as "have sexual relations." Frankly, I've read up on this and done my own research. The historical usages of this word are never unambiguously "have sexual relations," and there is no other place in the Greek NT where the word is clearly "have sexual relations." The KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc., have it right. Brief exegesis: in many cases, a man touching a woman is not wise, but the passage doesn't call it a sin, just says not touching a woman is generally good. So sure, hug your Mom or aunt--but not that attractive single lady at church!
In the NET Bible notes on "dung" in Philippians 3:8, it is claimed that the Greek word (skubalon, σκύβαλον) was a vulgar word. It's a hapax legomenon in the Greek NT, only occurring here, but in the extra-biblical documents it is a technical term used by medical doctors. That completely rules out the idea it was a vulgar word (like we have several of in English).
Believe it or not, there are fads in English Bible translation. (Not so much in missionary translation.) What happens is that some scholar comes up with an untested theory about the semantics of a Greek or Hebrew word, and translators jump on the bandwagon. This looks like a new one. I had not heard it before, but it fits the pattern.
One such fad is the Hebrew chesed (חסד), a very common word usually translated "mercy" in the more traditional translations. Various modern translations have gone with "unfailing love" or "steadfast love," pretty much by concordance (every rendering the same), but the context often points to "mercy."
Another example is in 1 Corinthians 7:1, where many modern versions (NIV, ESV, etc.) translate "touch" (Greek hapto, ἁπτω) as "have sexual relations." Frankly, I've read up on this and done my own research. The historical usages of this word are never unambiguously "have sexual relations," and there is no other place in the Greek NT where the word is clearly "have sexual relations." The KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc., have it right. Brief exegesis: in many cases, a man touching a woman is not wise, but the passage doesn't call it a sin, just says not touching a woman is generally good. So sure, hug your Mom or aunt--but not that attractive single lady at church!
In the NET Bible notes on "dung" in Philippians 3:8, it is claimed that the Greek word (skubalon, σκύβαλον) was a vulgar word. It's a hapax legomenon in the Greek NT, only occurring here, but in the extra-biblical documents it is a technical term used by medical doctors. That completely rules out the idea it was a vulgar word (like we have several of in English).
Here is some translation work for you to experience the variability of the preposition אֶל and why there might be some disagreement in Genesis 3:16.
CONTEXT determines correct usage... and in Genesis 3:16 there is debate about the context.
Choosing the correct use of a word is not a matter of picking from among the choices to better fit your doctrine.
אֶל (ʾel) is usually glossed simply as “to” but as noted in the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) there is quite a bit of variability.
In most cases the correct meaning of the preposition is usually determined by the context in which it is used.
1. Basic meaning: “to”
2. Direction “towards”
3. Location
4. Terminal Goal
5. Disadvantage: Against, up to
6. Advantage/Agreement: for, according to
7. In, Into
8. Accompaniment: with
Rob
CONTEXT determines correct usage... and in Genesis 3:16 there is debate about the context.
Choosing the correct use of a word is not a matter of picking from among the choices to better fit your doctrine.
אֶל (ʾel) is usually glossed simply as “to” but as noted in the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) there is quite a bit of variability.
In most cases the correct meaning of the preposition is usually determined by the context in which it is used.
1. Basic meaning: “to”
Genesis 18:7 Abraham also ran אֶל the herd, and took a tender and choice calf and gave it אֶל the servant, and he hurried to prepare it.
2. Direction “towards”
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them אֶל the man to see what he would call them…
Isaiah 8:22 Then they will look אֶל the earth, and behold, distress and darkness…
1 Kings 8:29 so that Your eyes may be open אֶל this house night and day, אֶל the place of which You have said, ‘My name shall be there,’ to listen אֶל the prayer which Your servant will pray אֶל this place.
Isaiah 8:22 Then they will look אֶל the earth, and behold, distress and darkness…
1 Kings 8:29 so that Your eyes may be open אֶל this house night and day, אֶל the place of which You have said, ‘My name shall be there,’ to listen אֶל the prayer which Your servant will pray אֶל this place.
3. Location
1 Samuel 17:3 The Philistines were standing אֶל the mountain on one side, while Israel was standing אֶל the mountain on the other side, with the valley between them.
Jeremiah 41:12 So they took all the men and went to fight with Ishmael the son of Nethaniah and they found him אֶל the large pool that is in Gibeon.
1 Kings 13:20 Now it came about, as they were sitting down אֶל the table, that the word of the Lord came אֶל the prophet who had brought him back;
Jeremiah 41:12 So they took all the men and went to fight with Ishmael the son of Nethaniah and they found him אֶל the large pool that is in Gibeon.
1 Kings 13:20 Now it came about, as they were sitting down אֶל the table, that the word of the Lord came אֶל the prophet who had brought him back;
4. Terminal Goal
Genesis 7:1 Then the Lord said to Noah, “Enter אֶל the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this generation.
5. Disadvantage: Against, up to
Genesis 6:16 You shall make a window for the ark, and finish it אֶל a cubit from the top; and put the door of the ark on the side; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks.
Numbers 32:14 Now behold, you have risen up in your fathers’ place, born of sinful men, to add still more to the burning anger of the Lord אֶל Israel.
Judges 20:30 And the sons of Israel went אֶל the sons of Benjamin on the third day and lined up against Gibeah as at other times.
Ecclesiastes 9:14 there was a small city with few men in it, and a great king came אֶל it, surrounded it, and constructed large siegeworks against (עַל) it.
Numbers 32:14 Now behold, you have risen up in your fathers’ place, born of sinful men, to add still more to the burning anger of the Lord אֶל Israel.
Judges 20:30 And the sons of Israel went אֶל the sons of Benjamin on the third day and lined up against Gibeah as at other times.
Ecclesiastes 9:14 there was a small city with few men in it, and a great king came אֶל it, surrounded it, and constructed large siegeworks against (עַל) it.
6. Advantage/Agreement: for, according to
1 Kings 19:3 And he was afraid, and got up and ran אֶל his life and came to Beersheba, …
Joshua 15:13 Now he gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh a portion among the sons of Judah, אֶל the command of the Lord to Joshua, namely, Kiriath-arba, Arba being the father of Anak (that is, Hebron).
Joshua 15:13 Now he gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh a portion among the sons of Judah, אֶל the command of the Lord to Joshua, namely, Kiriath-arba, Arba being the father of Anak (that is, Hebron).
7. In, Into
Job 40:23 If a river rages, he is not alarmed; He is confident, though the Jordan rushes אֶל his mouth.
8. Accompaniment: with
1 Samuel 14:34 …do not sin against the Lord by eating it אֶל the blood.’ ...
Rob