ESV Changes Meaning of Genesis 3:16

[InTheLight]

A debate is stirring over revisions made to the final translation of the English Standard Version Bible regarding gender, with one biblical scholars saying the changes are "potentially dangerous."

Editors changed the previous translation of Genesis 3:16 which said, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." The verse has now been changed to read, "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you."

Northern Seminary New Testament professor Scot McKnight believes the word changes in the newly revised ESV Bible, such as those found in Genesis 3:16, have profoundly negative implications.

"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," McKnight said in an interview with The Christian Post on Thursday. "By so rendering this verse, the ESV creates the impression that females and males are contrarians with one another."
----

Comments?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[TCassidy]

אֵל ('el) can be translated as against or over. The woman had originally been created to be a helper, fit for the man, but had not only emancipated herself from the man to listen to the serpent, but also had led the man into sin.

For that she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease (תְּשׁוּקָה from שׁוּק to run, to have a violent craving for a thing), and with subjection to the man, “And he shall rule over you,” which she violently craves to reject and escape.

It's one of those "take your pick" passages.

 

[rsr]

First, I would note that the ESV committee has backtracked on its intent to make the current revision a "permanent text." That doesn't mean it won't change, but it also doesn't mean it will.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

אֵל ('el) can be translated as against or over. The woman had originally been created to be a helper, fit for the man, but had not only emancipated herself from the man to listen to the serpent, but also had led the man into sin.

For that she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease (תְּשׁוּקָה from שׁוּק to run, to have a violent craving for a thing), and with subjection to the man, “And he shall rule over you,” which she violently craves to reject and escape.

It's one of those "take your pick" passages.

It can an translated either way though, and does that really change the truth that God has established roles for male/females in Church and family though?

 

[Yeshua1]

First, I would note that the ESV committee has backtracked on its intent to make the current revision a "permanent text." That doesn't mean it won't change, but it also doesn't mean it will.

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.

Which side of this debate would you come down on favoring?

 

[InTheLight]

It's one of those "take your pick" passages.

I wonder why the new ESV goes against 400+ years of translating it one way and goes with the different translation?

 

[Yeshua1]

I wonder why the new ESV goes against 400+ years of translating it one way and goes with the different translation?

They felt that it was the better way to translate it

 

[TCassidy]

Which side of this debate would you come down on favoring?

I am a complementarian so I favor the traditional reading. But also recognize that the ESV reading can be supported from the Hebrew philology.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am a complementarian so I favor the traditional reading. But also recognize that the ESV reading can be supported from the Hebrew philology.

Think that this is one instance where one can make valid arguements either way,and that is due to the actual Grammar/wording here, not due to either position side.

Unlike the 2011 Niv, that seemed to also take into account some current thoughts on how men/women are to be viewed!

 

[rsr]

I'd rather not get into NIV bashing in this thread.

 

[rsr]

I am a complementarian so I favor the traditional reading. But also recognize that the ESV reading can be supported from the Hebrew philology.

Yet Foh advanced her rendering because it it seems to strengthen complementarianism.

Contrary to the usual interpretations of commentators, the desire of the woman in Genesis 3:16b does not make the wife (more) submissive to her husband so that he may rule over her. Her desire is to contend with him for leadership in their relationship. This desire is a result of and a just punishment for sin, but it is not God's decretive will for the woman. Consequently, the man must actively seek to rule his wife.

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.

 

[Salty]

I wonder why the new ESV goes against 400+ years of translating it one way and goes with the different translation?

for over 400 years people took a carriage pulled by a horse where they had to go -
then a horseless carriage ...... - nah - bad ideal -we'll just stay with what has worked for 400 years....

 

[robycop3]

Normally, a woman desires a man, and a man desires a woman. Normally, a man is larger & stronger than a woman. And most families in most cultures have a man or men as "supreme" rulers. Thus, I favor the "traditional" reading of the verse as it appears that's God's plan.

There are exceptions, of course. I believe Deborah and Barak stand as an example of the main decision-maker being a woman. And nowhere does Scripture say queens are wrong.

But Scripture DOES tell man to respect, protect, and honor women.

 

[kyredneck]

The verse has now been changed to read, "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you."

By so rendering this verse, the ESV creates the impression that females and males are contrarians with one another."

It can an translated either way though, and does that really change the truth that God has established roles for male/females in Church and family though?

If you read deeper than the letter, beyond simply literal male and female, and recognize Christ and the [Universal] Church, i.e. the woman of Ps 87, Isa 54, Gal 4:26, Rev 12, the 'new' rendering fits perfectly.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet Foh advanced her rendering because it it seems to strengthen complementarianism.



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.

The scriptures when taken in their fullness would show to us that however we view this one specifi verse, that God has ordained that men and women while equal, have differing roles!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'd rather not get into NIV bashing in this thread.

Not bashing, just stating that they see things in a different way in some areas!

 

[TCassidy]

God has ordained that men and women while equal, have differing roles!

Yeah, that's the whole point of the discussion. Egalitarianism verses Complementarianism.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeah, that's the whole point of the discussion. Egalitarianism verses Complementarianism.

Onr view fits the biblical one ,while the other does not!

 

[HankD]

Brenton English Translation LXX.
Genesis 3:16 {03:17} And to the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pains and thy groanings; in pain thou shalt bring forth children, and thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.


Douay-Rheims (English translation of the Latin Vulgate)
Genesis 3:16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.


HankD

 

[rlvaughn]

The EXB is the only translation I've found that seems to agree with ESV at this text, with the note “the word implies a desire to control; 4:7”.