Genesis 3:16 in the English Standard Version Bible

[alexander284]

Genesis 3:16 in the English Standard Version Bible:

"Your desire shall be contrary to your husband."

What are your thoughts regarding this choice of translation?

Should it, indeed, be "contrary to your husband?"

Or rather, should it say, "for your husband?"

 

[Deacon]

I’ve followed the arguments for the change in articles.
It is presented in John Collins (a contributor to the translation team of the ESV) commentary on the first chapters of Genesis.

I personally don’t like the change.
A footnote with a long explanation is required in the translation: not something that is common.

My muses:

Existentially, we can observe both sides, but I think the meaning is more about an inward desire.

Theologically, we can observe both. Believers have a desire for God, yet are still drawn away by the cares of the world.
As the bride of Christ, the Spirit works with our spirit to negate the curse, but we are yet far from perfected.

Rob

 

[alexander284]

I’ve followed the arguments for the change in articles.
It is presented in John Collins (a contributor to the translation team of the ESV) commentary on the first chapters of Genesis.

I personally don’t like the change.
A footnote with a long explanation is required in the translation: not something that is common.

My muses:

Existentially, we can observe both sides, but I think the meaning is more about an inward desire.

Theologically, we can observe both. Believers have a desire for God, yet are still drawn away by the cares of the world.
As the bride of Christ, the Spirit works with our spirit to negate the curse, but we are yet far from perfected.

Rob

"And you will desire to control your husband." Genesis 3:16 (New Living Translation)

The change in the ESV surprised me right away, because it brought to mind the fact that it was now (essentially) in agreement with the NLT.

And I never, ever expected to see a Bible translation as "literal" as the ESV to be in agreement with a translation as "dynamic" as the NLT.

I found that rather astonishing, I must say!

 

[McCree79]

From the NAC commentary on Gen 3:16 ....


better is the explanation suggested by Gen 4:7b, where 'desire' and 'rule' [masal] are found again in tandem: 'It desires to have you, but you must master [masal] it.' In chap. 4 'sin' is like an animal that when stirred up will assault Cain; it 'desires' to overcome Cain, but the challenge God puts to Cain is to exercise 'rule' or 'mastery' over that unruly desire. If we are to take the lexical and structural similarities as intentional, we must read the verses in concert. This recommends that 3:16b also describes a struggle for mastery between the sexes. The 'desire' of the woman is her attempt to control her husband, but she will fail because God has ordained that the man exercise his leadership function. The force of the defeat is obscured somewhat by the rendering 'and he will rule'; the conjunction is better understood as 'but he will rule.'


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[alexander284]

From the NAC commentary on Gen 3:16 ....


better is the explanation suggested by Gen 4:7b, where 'desire' and 'rule' [masal] are found again in tandem: 'It desires to have you, but you must master [masal] it.' In chap. 4 'sin' is like an animal that when stirred up will assault Cain; it 'desires' to overcome Cain, but the challenge God puts to Cain is to exercise 'rule' or 'mastery' over that unruly desire. If we are to take the lexical and structural similarities as intentional, we must read the verses in concert. This recommends that 3:16b also describes a struggle for mastery between the sexes. The 'desire' of the woman is her attempt to control her husband, but she will fail because God has ordained that the man exercise his leadership function. The force of the defeat is obscured somewhat by the rendering 'and he will rule'; the conjunction is better understood as 'but he will rule.'


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

So, I take it you agree with the way the NLT renders this passage?

 

[McCree79]

The NET agrees with the ESV as well.

The NET teams provide this note in regards to their decision.

"Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle. The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (teshuqah, “desire”) is debated. Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.” Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) In Gen 3:16 the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle. See further Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83."

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[alexander284]

The NET agrees with the ESV as well.

The NET teams provide this note in regards to their decision.

"Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle. The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (teshuqah, “desire”) is debated. Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.” Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) In Gen 3:16 the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle. See further Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83."

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Ah. So it sounds like you're saying that the ESV, the NLT, and the NET got it right?

 

[McCree79]

So, I take it you agree with the way the NLT renders this passage?

I think it is very possible communicating the correct message. The passage is notoriously difficult. The phrase in the LXX also lacks a verb and really doesn't help the english reader know what exactly is the meaning here. If προς is to be read as "against" in the accustive then the LXX agrees with the ESV as well. It would read "agaisnt your husband [is/will be] your inclination'.

I think the ESV, NET and NLT are likely right, but I cant say 100%.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Revmitchell]

Ah. So it sounds like you're saying that the ESV, the NLT, and the NET got it right?

If any version that is a Dynamic Equivalence gets something right about scripture it is purely an accident.

 

[alexander284]

I think it is very possible communicating the correct message. The passage is notoriously difficult. The phrase in the LXX also lacks a verb and really doesn't help the english reader know what exactly is the meaning here. If προς is to be read as "against" in the accustive then the LXX agrees with the ESV as well. It would read "agaisnt your husband [is/will be] your inclination'.

I think the ESV, NET and NLT are likely right, but I cant say 100%.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I appreciate your thoughtful, logical, rational, reasoned responses throughout. Very enlightening!

 

[rsr]

My problem is not with the translation per se (although I am skeptical of recently found renderings) as with what Gurdem et al. want to make of it — an endorsement of complementarianism. The NAC sets it out: "The 'desire' of the woman is her attempt to control her husband, but she will fail because God has ordained that the man exercise his leadership function."

Unfortunately for the complementarians, the rendering does not help their case, IMO. The egalitarians can simply maintain that the "leadership function" is a result of the fall, not something ordained by God. The NET note, for example, upholds the rendering but without endorsing sanctified male domination.

 

[Reformed1689]

It has to do with the language and grammar found in Genesis 4:7. It is of the exact same construct. Most commentators realize that this does not mean the desire is for her husband in a way that would signify marriage harmony. It obviously is talking about her desire to be in charge yet the man shall rule over her. This creates immediate discord.

This is why Paul wrote that wives must submit to their husbands. Why did he have to write this? Because since the curse, this is not a natural position for a woman to take.

While it is different than what we have heard before, it is the correct translation of the passage.

With regard to the ESV, remember it is ESSENTIALLY literal. It never claims to be literal. And it is also not accurate to say:

A footnote with a long explanation is required in the translation: not something that is common.

A long footnote is not required. It simply puts "or toward".

This has generated a lot more controversy than what is merited.

 

[alexander284]

It has to do with the language and grammar found in Genesis 4:7. It is of the exact same construct. Most commentators realize that this does not mean the desire is for her husband in a way that would signify marriage harmony. It obviously is talking about her desire to be in charge yet the man shall rule over her. This creates immediate discord.

This is why Paul wrote that wives must submit to their husbands. Why did he have to write this? Because since the curse, this is not a natural position for a woman to take.

While it is different than what we have heard before, it is the correct translation of the passage.

With regard to the ESV, remember it is ESSENTIALLY literal. It never claims to be literal. And it is also not accurate to say:


A long footnote is not required. It simply puts "or toward".

This has generated a lot more controversy than what is merited.

I prefer "contrary to," especially considering our current culture!

 

[Deacon]

Isaiah 66:7–9 (ESV)
“Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she delivered a son.
Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? Shall a nation be brought forth in one moment? For as soon as Zion was in labor she brought forth her children.
Shall I bring to the point of birth and not cause to bring forth?” says the Lord; “shall I, who cause to bring forth, shut the womb?” says your God.


Isaiah alludes to Genesis 3:16.
In this passage Jerusalem is in turmoil (uproar), and the LORD renders justice.
The curse is lifted when the people listen to the voice of the LORD.

Some people listen, others turn away.
Isaiah's message works with both translational choices, perhaps a bit better with the ESV's new translation.

Rob

 

[Rippon2]

If any version that is a Dynamic Equivalence gets something right about scripture it is purely an accident.

How informed you are. I hereby sentence you to spend one month in the NLT. You will come out as a convert.