תשוקה in Genesis 3:16, 4:7, and Song of Songs 7:10

In a previous post, I noted my dissatisfaction with NLT Genesis 3:16. The translation NLT offers of Gen 3:16 is, it seems to me, indefensible on philological grounds.

Here is NLT Genesis 3:16b – the part that is of immediate interest:

And you will desire to control your husband,

  but he will rule over you.*

*3:16 Or And though you will have desire for your husband, / he will rule over you.

My beef is with NLT’s primary reading, the only one most people will ever notice, the only one most people will ever quote. The alternate reading reflects the traditional interpretation of the verse. The traditional interpretation is on target, as I argue below.

Philology is the study of words. Correct method requires that the meaning of words be established by the following means and according to the following order of importance:

(1) Usage within a defined language and time period

(2) Usage within a defined language over a broader time period

(3) Usage within a defined language family over a defined time period

It’s all about usage. Etymology, strictly speaking, should play no role at all.

Better yet, it’s all about usage with extreme attention given to contextual considerations. Just because word x has a meaning we like in one or more occurrences doesn’t mean we can plug that meaning into another passage. Context (including identification of genre and kind of usage, metaphorical or non-metaphorical, for example) determines whether the proposed meaning is probable, not statistics. Statistical arguments of the following kind: word x in most other occurrences means y, therefore, it most likely means y in this occurrence; or word x rarely means y elsewhere, therefore, it probably doesn’t mean y here – are too crude to be useful.

The meaning of תשוקה in Genesis 3:16 has been disputed since 1976 (see bibliography below). Does it mean “desire, longing” in its three occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, as was thought to be the case before then, and as is still the consensus among scholars today? Or does it mean something far more specific on the one hand and something more inconstant on the other, “desire to control” and “eager to control” in Gen 3:16 and 4:7, respectively, and “claim” in Song of Songs 7:10 (=7:11 in some verse numberings) – as NLT suggests?

From a philological point of view, it is more convincing to identify a single common sense for a specific term across passages in which it occurs, all other things being equal. All other things being equal, of course, is the sticking point.

It is my contention that תשוקה has a single common sense in its three occurrences in the Hebrew Bible. Here is my argument.

תשוקה in Genesis 3 and 4

In Genesis 3:15, the battle between serpentkind (a personification of temptation) and womankind is described as one which will be perpetual. The emphasis is on serpentkind having the wherewithal to do but limited harm to womankind. In Genesis 4:7, a similar battle is described. The emphasis is placed on humanity having the wherewithal to dominate sin. Sin is described in utterly convincing phenomenological terms as a being which lurks at the door.

3:15 and 4:7 complement one another. In the battle with temptation and sin, God tilts the playing field in favor of humanity. Will humanity exploit the fact so as to master the situation? The drama lies therein. Here is the Hebrew:

 15וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית

בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה

 

וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ

וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ

 

הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ

וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב׃

[God to the serpent]

And I shall set enmity

between you and the woman,

between your seed

and her seed.

He will bruise your head,

but you will bruise his heel.

6 לָמָּה חָרָה לָךְ

וְלָמָּה נָפְלוּ פָנֶיךָ׃

 

7 הֲלוֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב שְׂאֵת

וְאִם לֹא תֵיטִיב

לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ

 

וְאֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתֹו

וְאַתָּה תִּמְשָׁל־בֹּו׃

[God to Cain]

Why does it burn you?

Why are you crestfallen?

If you are well-disposed, there’s uplift.

If you are not well-disposed,

Sin, a lurker, is at the door.

His desire is for you,

but you are able to dominate him.

Correspondences are clear: ‘serpent and serpentkind // sin, a lurker’; ‘bruising the heel // waiting at the door, ready to pounce.’ The serpent is addressed in the first instance. The maximum damage the serpent can do (‘bruise the heel’) is specified last, and caps God’s speech. The human is addressed in the second instance. The maximum damage the human can do (‘dominate him,’ which is less than annihilating him) is specified last, and once again caps the divine speech.

‘Why does it burn you?’ is an impersonal construction. ‘It’ refers to a precedent fact, that of God preferring Abel’s offering to Cain's.

With Keil and Delitzsch, Sarna, Wenham et al., I take H יטב to refer to mood, not behavior, and שְׂאֵת to refer to a potential reversal of Cain’s crestfallenness, not forgiveness. Should Cain be well-disposed to his brother despite the circumstances, God will show favor to him as well.

The language the twin narratives use to describe relationships blighted by broken intimacy with God is symmetrical and asymmetrical at the same time.

16 וְאֶל אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ

וְהוּא יִמְשֹׁל בָּךְ׃

[God to the woman]

Your desire is for your man;

he on his part will dominate you.

7 וְאֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתֹו

וְאַתָּה תִּמְשָׁל־בֹּו

[God to Cain, speaking of a “crouching” demon]

His desire is for you,

but you are able to dominate him.

In Genesis 3, ‘your desire for your partner’ is a positive (as in Song of Songs 7:11: see below) balanced by a negative ‘he will dominate you.’ In Genesis 4, a negative ‘[sin’s] desire for you’ is balanced by a positive ‘you are able to dominate him.’ Note the inversion of elements. Inversion is a well-known literary device in literature the world over, and in ancient Hebrew literature as well.

By translating yiqtol משל ‘able to dominate’ in Gen 4:7, I do not mean to suggest that the sense is restricted to potentiality. In both cases, yiqtol תמשל ‘you will dominate’ refers to both certainty and potentiality, in this sense: it is certain that he/you is/are able. Note that משל ‘rule, govern’ is used negatively in Gen 3, and positively in Gen 4. Negative and positive usages of משל ‘rule, govern’ are amply attested elsewhere in Hebrew, as is the case for like words in languages and literatures generally.

In Genesis 3, the outcome of broken intimacy with God is a relationship in which the woman’s man will domineer. In Genesis 4, the outcome of broken intimacy with God is a relationship with sin and temptation in which the latter attack and menace life’s goodness.

But in both narratives, God puts limits on the damage broken intimacy with him brings in its wake. If it were not so, life would merely be hell on earth. The overabounding nature of God’s benevolence vis-à-vis human sin becomes fully manifest from chapter 12 of the book of Genesis on.

But does תשוקה mean ‘desire, longing’ in Genesis 3 and 4, rather than ‘desire to control’? So far, I have only established the possibility that ‘desire, longing’ is the meaning in Gen 3 and 4. I have not established its probability. All other things being equal, one might argue, ‘desire to control’ works just as well.

The symmetry of the larger textual context as I understand it, with its balance of positives and negatives observable elsewhere in the Genesis 3-4 narrative block, is eliminated if תשוקה is taken to mean ‘desire to control.’ In that case, תשוקה is used negatively in both Gen 3 and 4, whereas תמשל ‘you will rule’ is used negatively once and positively once. The most famous positives balancing negatives in context are those of God clothing Adam and Eve with garments of skin after condemning them by various punishments (Gen 2:16-21); and of God protecting Cain even as he banishes him from sedentary human population (Gen 4;11-15).

This is one point in favor of the construal I offer. From a philological point of view, another argument carries more weight: the sense תשוקה has in its other occurrence in the Hebrew Bible: Song of Songs 7:10 [= 7:11 in MT and some translations].

תשוקה in Song of Songs 7:10

11 אֲנִי לְדוֹדִי

וְעָלַי תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ

ֹ

I am my beloved’s

and his desire is for me.

NLT:

I am my lover's,

and he claims me as his own.

NLT’s translation, to put it bluntly, is context-insensitive. Song of Songs generally and chapter 7 in particular are about desire, not a ‘claim’ made by one lover upon another. Furthermore, a concordant translation across all passages, ‘desire to control,’ is simply impossible.

In short, based on a context-sensitive examination of תשוקה across all of its occurrences in the Hebrew Bible in accordance with standard philological procedure, NLT’s translation of תשוקה is indefensible. ‘Desire, longing’ is the one meaning that works well in all three occurrences. It is the defensible meaning in all three occurrences.

‘(Impellent) desire, longing’ is also the meaning תשוקה has in Hebrew beyond the biblical period. Finally, ‘Desire, longing’ is the meaning the ancient translators (insofar as what they had in mind is ascertainable), based on passed-down understanding of ancient Hebrew, thought תשוקה had. More on those matters later.

Bibliography

Susan Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” Westminster Theological Journal 37 [1974/75] 376–83; Walter Vogels, "The Power Struggle between Man and Woman," Biblica 77 (1996) 197–209

I will deal with the specific arguments of these authors in a separate post.

Comments

[Bob MacDonald]

John - it won't surprise you that I concur 100% with your reading and your rationale. Thanks.

[Martin Shields]

Hi John,

Thanks for the post. I like your analysis of the balance between positive and negative across Gen 3:16 and 4:7. I'm going to think that through a little more.

Regarding Song 7:11, however, I don't think your case is as strong as you imply. As love poetry, Song uses language in unusual ways. Just look at Song 7:5 which uses אשר 'tie, bind, imprison', elsewhere almost always used of harsh captivity. The strength of language reflects the emotional force it expresses. This example could easily be multiplied in the context of the Song. So in 7:11 the first line is essentially an expression of ownership:

אני לדודי

So a loose paraphrase of the couplet could thus be "I belong to my beloved and he owns me." I think this fits well with the "alternate" understanding of תשוקה.

Finally, I know etymology has been abused and that it can lead us down the wrong path, but I think that for terms which are obscure it is sometimes useful to consider it as well. And I think תשוקה qualifies as sufficiently obscure to make it worthwhile considering the etymology which favours the "control" reading. Now if it didn't fit the contexts in which the word appears then I'd go with context over etymology, but if they all concur, perhaps it lends some weight to the overall argument?

Love is, after all, as strong as death!

Martin Shields.

[Suzanne]

I suggest this article for a suggestion that teshuqa was a continuation of the previous statements about the condition of woman.

In this analysis, the entire verse 16 is about things which are to woman's disadvantage. This also concurs with the LXX reading, that the woman is turned away towards man. This interpretation is also found in the Vulgate and DR, of course, and turns up in Calvin as part of woman's subjection.

On the other hand, I have also read Martin's excellent paper on this topic.

[Suzanne]

I dunno. I checked the link in the preview. Hmm. Gen. 3:16 Reconsidered by Irvin Busenitz

[Suzanne]

Gen. 3:16 Reconsidered by Irvin Busenitz

[JohnFH]

Martin,

Thank you for your comments. Your dedication to understanding this passage is perfectly evident. Let me try to summarize our chief areas of disagreement. Keep in mind I have not read any extended treatment of yours of this passage. Your previous comments on my blog are my sole point of departure.

(1) You suggest that an appeal to etymology is appropriate. I say: it is never appropriate.

However, if you wish to demonstrate that the usage of a cognate of teshuqa in Arabic is similar to the usage of teshuqa in Hebrew, for example, that it co-occurs with similar terms, is used in similar contexts, and so on, then you have the beginnings of an argument.

However, a study of the usage of teshuqa in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Mishnah, and later Hebrew literature ought to take precedence. The historical memory of the language should not be set aside without strong evidence to the contrary. Later usage is any case more probative than a parallel usage of a cognate - yet to be demonstrated - in Arabic.

On "The Use of Arabic in Biblical Hebrew Lexicography," one must start with John Kaltner's monograph of that title. His 14 guidelines must be followed. Otherwise, it is garbage in, garbage out.

(2) As I understand it, like NLT, you see a range of meanings for teshuqa which is quite different from teshuqa '(impellent) desire' of later Hebrew. "Desire to control" in Gen 3 and 4, and "ownership" in SS 7. On the face of it, your explanation of SS 7:10 sounds plausible enough, but only if the rest of SS is not ringing in one's ears (I happen to know this book backwards and forwards). Take 2:16, for example: "My love is mine, and I am his, who browses among the lilies." The lilies are a metaphorical stand-in for the girl's breasts, as I imagine you already know if you have spent time with this fabulous love poetry and its use of images. Read 2:16 in context, from 2:15 on. 3:1 and following is continuous in terms of theme. Ownership, even in a positive sense, is not the theme. How could it be in love poetry full of the seek-and-find trope? The theme is the sense of attachment and belonging desire creates. "I am his" in that sense. Take a look now at 6:1-3. Same story. Then note the continuation of MT 7:11 in the larger context of chapter 7. The goal of chapter 7 is not a sense of mutual ownership, per your understanding of 7:11. If that were the meaning of 7:11, the larger unit would have ended there. Instead, it continues. The goal of the passage is clearly lovemaking (7:13-14). Exactly what one would expect given teshuqa '(impellent) desire" in 7:11.

I imagine you have other reasons for preferring 'desire to control' in Genesis 3 and 4 to the traditional, vanilla-flavored 'desire.' Always fun, in any case, to posit a heretofore unimagined meaning for an ancient vocable. Most proposals of this kind, in the history of the field, are now forgotten. But guess what? A few of them are almost certainly right. We just don't know which ones. So keep at at, if you think it's worth the effort. My purpose here is not to dissuade you in your endeavor, bur rather, to act as a sounding board and a conversation partner.

[JohnFH]

Suzanne,

Thanks for the bibliographical references. At this point, if you've read them, I would rather have you summarize the arguments in them you find persuasive, if any.

BTW, in the history of exegesis, beginning with the book of Jubilees in the so-called Intertestamental Period, it is possible to find negative attitudes toward sexual desire per se. The interpretation of which you speak, according to which teshuqa would be negative here, has an ancient pedigree. But that doesn't mean the author of Genesis intended it that way, as of course you know. The trouble with people who spend a lot of time looking at the history of exegesis is that they end up not caring what the text and its author intended to say, since a reconstruction of that, strictly speaking, is irrelevant to the study of the history of exegesis. Keep in mind, that the sensus literalis of Gen 3:16 understood in typical Renaissance - Reformed terms (ad fontes!) is my sole focus here.

Later in the series, I will interact with previous scholarship on this passage. But it's important not to begin with the secondary literature. One should begin with the primary evidence, and sort it out as best one can according to a strict methodology.

As far as LXX goes, the text is a crux. It does not obviously mean what you say it does. When a version's sense is as opaque as LXX Gen 3:16 is, one cannot base a lot on it, nor on the history of interpretation of the Fathers based on LXX.

The Vulgate is clearer. For the moment I will simply point out that Michael Marlowe online uses the Vulgate to argue that NLT at Genesis 3:16 is misbegotten. I need to re-examine the evidence, but I think Marlowe argues in the right direction, though I would argue along different lines.

I realize you may turn to LXX and the Vulgate because they are sources you are familiar with. However, the relevant sources in Jewish midrashic literature and in the piyyutim are legion and, in my view, likely to hew closer to the sense Gen 3:16 had in the beginning and for Jews up through the end of the Second Temple and beyond than is sometimes the case in LXX and Vulgate. The rabbinic sources are usually ignored by Christian Hebraists but for no just reason.

The volume recently edited by Michael D. Swartz and Joseph Yahalom entitled
"Avodah: An Anthology of Ancient Poetry for Yom Kippur" (2005) is incredibly interesting w.r.t. the subject matter at hand. The poetry is almost virgin territory in terms of research in the history of exegesis. Some of the key texts were practically unavailable before the publication of this volume. Read how the piyyutim contained in the volume conceptualize creation of Adam and Eve, the fall, redemption, and so on: it will blow your socks off.

[Suzanne]

John,

The article I tried to link to was in support of your thesis. Anyway, I like what you are saying about the historical memory of the language. Thanks for your long and thoughtful response. I am already familiar with Rashi on this one, please don't assume that I am not, and I assume it is the most likely interpretation. I am basically with you on this.

But let me emphasize, I am not running a horse on this one. Martin's paper is also good.

What is interesting is that the Geneva Bible tries to split the difference between the Pagnini Latin (from Rashi) and the Vulgate with,

"and thy desire shalbe subiect to thine husbande, and he shall rule ouer thee." Geneva

[JohnFH]

Suzanne,

Your point about Rashi is excellent. As a default, go with Rashi. He's not always right, of course, but even when he's wrong, he's brilliant.

[Suzanne]

I am hoping to photograph more of Pagnini's Bible in late october. There is one in Toronto. He is the one who made the change on this one and brought many other rabbinical readings into the Latin and from there into Coverdale, etc. I already have Genesis, but I will look up S of S and some other books. I would like to have the full OT eventually. It really is the most significant reformation Bible in my biased view.

[JohnFH]

A copy of Pagnini's Bible is an hour away from me, in the Golda Meir collection of the Univ of Wisconsin - Milwaukee. I'll have to take a look at it.

[J. K. Gayle]

John,
You're making some helpful connections between the 3 passages (with a nod to Bob's cautions about the liberalness of the Song)! I think such intertextuality is important for many reasons, mostly hermeneutical. Suzanne is right to bring in the LXX for many reasons, not necessarily for the concordance with the Hebrew but absolutely because it opens up the NT interpretations.

My own thinking on this is that Mark's and Matthew's accounts of Satan's tempting Jesus parallel Genesis 3, and the two gospel writers put Greek (i.e., LXX) words in the devil's mouth as he quotes from Psalm 91. The Septuagint has novel allusions to demons and the dragon. See LXX psalm 90.6 for δαιμονίου μεσημβρινοῦ (mid-day Greek deity) and δράκοντα (the Dragon). Of course, the NT writers, especially the gospel writers in Greek speak very much of the contest with the demons/ deities. And John, in his apocalypse / revelation, sure makes clear that Satan's the dragon metaphorically speaking. So the last book of the Christian canon gets a tie back to the first, and even to Genesis 3.

[J. K. Gayle]

more for the bibliography:

http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/08_1/aurin.htm

HT Jane Stranz:
http://stranzblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/difficult-reading-in-feminist-theology.html

[Martin Shields]

Hi John,

I'll check out Kaltner's monograph, thanks for pointing it out.

(1) I think there remains a limited place for etymology. Consider the situation where you come across a hapax term for which more than one possible meaning could feasibly be posited. What if etymological considerations exclude some or all of the various meanings? At this point, I think I'd probably go with the etymology. Of course this is a very well tailored scenario and such a circumstance may never actually arise, but I am trying to load the dice here a little.

When it comes to תשוקה there are perhaps indications that things are a little confused early on. As you know, the LXX and some targums imply תשובה in Gen 3:15 or else (mis?) understood תשוקה to be a synonym of תשובה. The Vulgate only adds to the impression of uncertainty.

In light of this, in this particular instance, depending too heavily upon later usage may be problematical. If there are indications of problems understanding it early on, how much is later understanding influenced by an assumed meaning for the term in Genesis and Song? If so, it doesn't tell us a whole lot about the meaning of תשוקה except for how it was later understood.

What is also not clear is when the meaning "desire" can first be attested for תשוקה. BDB supports the "traditional" meaning by an appeal to a supposed Arabic cognate. It does look like Targ. Ps. Jon. understands the term this way, but are there any clear earlier attestations of this meaning? I can't find any references in the Mishnah, but there are a few in the Scrolls of which a number are in such fragmentary contexts that I wouldn't want to place too much weight on them, and the others I'd have to look at more closely.

(2) I don't think SS 7 is about "ownership" any more than SS 2. But I'm also not convinced that this language is entirely inappropriate in a poem expressing "the sense of attachment and belonging desire creates" in the same way that using אשר is also quite appropriate. After all, isn't "inappropriate" language sometimes the very thing that makes the text more interesting, since more is heard when you say something unexpected?

Of course I think "impellant desire" is somewhat different to simple "desire" and may better fit both the etymology and the contexts (depending upon exactly what you mean by the term). The problem with a simple unqualified "desire" in English is that it has tended to prompt all manner of wild speculation regarding the nature of the woman's desire for her husband (just read Leupold's explanation of the term).

In the end I'm quite in favour of idiosyncratic readings (within reason). Perhaps it comes from viewing things up-side down (living down-under here in Aus)? After all, I think ESV is right on Mal 2:16 and almost every other English translation has it wrong (although for very different reasons than Gen 3:16)! But this is all good stuff to think about, and so I thank you for giving me some thinking to do.

Martin Shields.

[Suzanne]

The LXX is essential for understanding the church fathers, just as the Vulgate and Pagnini are essential to understanding Calvin and Luther. There is little point pursuing what they wrote without pursuing the Bibles they read.

I can only chuckle at someone who cites Chrysostom on this verse along with the NASB version.

[Robert Holmstedt]

John,

This is an interesting verse, indeed. I've had a draft article on this verse sitting in my hard drive for about 8 years (I doubt I'll ever get back to it).

Your analysis is partial and, in my opinion, not quite adequate. You don't at all deal with the word order, particularly in the first half of the verse. Why is the PP "to your husband" fronted?

The fronted PP in the second half makes great sense if just the positive of the second stich is being contrasted with the negative of first stich. And one could stretch the (what I identify as) Focus-fronting of the PP in first stich as anticipatory; that is, the first PP was fronted in anticipation of the contrast (induced by the Focus) set up with the second stich.

However, I suggest that the Focus-fronting of "to our husband" is due to a contrast with an item in the previous clause: "children". I think that the whole verse is about the disharmony within the central human relationship domain: the family. Thus, the woman will have to toil greatly in bearing children, but in spite of this effort, her attention will be directed to her husband (to the neglect of her children?), and in spite of this attention, her husband will respond with dominance.

The verse is not just about a dysfunctional husband-wife relationship; it's about a dysfunctional family. At least, that's what I take away from the verse when the word order variation is admitted into the equation.

Cheers,
Rob

[JohnFH]

Kurk,

Thanks for some very interesting observations. Gen 3:15, as you know, is considered to be a Protoevangelium in the tradition of the church. The beginnings of this understanding are evident in the New Testament.

Martin,

Thank you for engaging here.

I don't know why for sure many of the versions at Gen 3:16 translate as they do. No one does, it seems to me. Thinking out loud, I wonder, perhaps a widespread exegetical tradition sought to desexualize the implication of teshuqah "(impellant) desire." That is just the kind of implication that naturally gets a number of people worked up. teshuqah understood more weakly as "response, inclination" may have been the intent in some of the older translations.

However, go take a look at Miqraot Gedolot (my next post on this passage). Jewish tradition knew full well what the word teshuqah means. There is really no evidence that the meaning had to be guessed at or divined, though once again, a strong desire (!) to reinterpret the word and passage along more "useful" lines is very evident.

Suzanne,

Thanks for the reminder about the history of interpretation. We shan't forget Nicholas of Lyra either, and the fact that some Christian Hebraists were able to read Rashi and others directly. Others read him in Latin.

[JohnFH]

Hi Rob,

You raise some interesting questions. Since this verse is part of a larger unit that has a poetic cast, it makes it harder than it might otherwise be to interpret word-order as a vector of semantic information.

The possibility that word-order is determined or co-determined here by the structuring of the larger textual unit in terms of recurrent parallel alignments at the word-order level has to be considered. Typical analysis of fronting is unable to capture semantic information vectored by parallelisms of this kind. At least, I am not aware of information structure analysis that addresses recurrent parallel alignments at the word-order level across large textual units with methodological rigor.

If you know of research which has touched on this in an interesting way, I would love to know about it.

[Robert Holmstedt]

John,

You wrote:
" Since this verse is part of a larger unit that has a poetic cast, it makes it harder than it might otherwise be to interpret word-order as a vector of semantic information."

I disagree entirely! I've not run across a bit of BH poetry yet that shows any different word order / Information Structure than prose. I've read quite a few of the psalms explicitly looking for such and, aside from obvious chiasm (by which I mean only ABC - CBA), it all fits the pattern I've laid out at SBL and in print (e.g. the Fox FS article on Proverbs).

Indeed, I set about my poetry reading to put a stop to the baseless claim "It's poetry, so the rules don't apply."

Cheers,
Rob

[JohnFH]

Rob,

That's interesting. I like your strong, bold thesis. I may take your explanation of "the pattern" laid out in the Fox FS and test it against Genesis 3:14-19 in a forthcoming post.

[Iyov]

I regret that I do not have sufficient time at the moment to respond properly to your carefully written and persuasively argued post. However, I must take exception with your implication that it is the "primary translation" is "t he only one most people will ever notice" and that footnotes are ignored.

This reflects the sort of anti-intellectual bias that too many people bring to Bible study -- the suggestion that one's translation is somehow inspired and thus translated the original meaning perfectly. To ignore an alternative interpretation flagged by the translators themselves is the height of folly -- a perfect example of quoting out of context (which your very post argues strongly against).

I must say I regard anyone who ignores the footnotes with contempt. As you know well, even the Masoretes in the best original text included "footnotes" [masorah] (pointing, tikkune soferim, mikra soferim, issur soferim, unusually written letters, spacing, etc.)

People who do not know how to read should not have a Bible, and if NLT2 readers are incapable of moving their eyes to the bottom of the page, I suggest that they be required to attend fourth grade before they be allowed to read a work as challenging as the Bible.

It is perfectly legitimate to debate the meaning of a particular posek, but in absence of evidence excluding a particular interpretation, I think it is arrogant to suggest that in this case the NLT2 translators were anything less than the model of responsibility.

[JohnFH]

Iyov,

Thanks for your comments.

It's good to see you defending NLT2. That's a bit outside the box for you, but then, you are not easy to pigeonhole.

The fact is, whether it is a good thing or not, a Bible for the general public should not include in its main text idiosyncratic translation choices. Most people should not, but do ignore footnotes. Nor is the content of footnotes usually referred to in the context of preaching.

Based on those ineluctable realities, no wonder NEB became REB, and NLT1 became NLT2. I'm just pushing further in the same direction, toward NLT3.

[Suzanne]

John,

I have also had a look at the NLT footnotes and feel that they position the NLT, more than many other translations, as a common Bible, by virtue of the footnotes. i don't necessarily like the first choice, that found in the text, but overall I have been impressed.

[Iyov]

The fact is, whether it is a good thing or not, a Bible for the general public should not include in its main text idiosyncratic translation choices

John, I could not disagree with you more. My view: translators should include the best translation, not the least idiosyncratic (and I think that given your experiments with translation, you can hardly claim that the two notions are synonymous).

There is nothing special about a Bible in this choice -- the same argument to any translation of literature.

The Oral Torah, as you certainly know, continues to unfold. To speak of some major faith traditions: To avoid idiosyncratic choices means that Avram would never have knocked over his father's idols in Uz, nor left on his long journey. To avoid idiosyncratic choices means that Europe would still be following the Mystery cults, instead of a heretic Jew. To avoid idiosyncratic choices means that Luther would have decided to accept that bishopric after all.

Less rhetorically, if the mark of excellence is merely avoiding idiosyncrasies, there is certainly no need for more than one English translation per century or two.

As far as your (rather snide) remark about the evolution of the NEB to the REB -- let me point out that the REB has almost never referred to in the academic literature while the NEB is still regularly cited. Why? Because scholars appreciate the risk taking of the NEB. Does that make the NEB the best translation? Of course not, but it is certainly one worth reading (I cannot make that statement with equal force for the REB).

But your remarks are certainly unfounded in the case of the NLT2, as a quick glance at the earlier versions reveals. At Gen 3:16b the NLT1 swaps primary and footnoted interpretations. The LB has the "conventional" interpretation will reveal.

Now, to be clear, my point here is not to defend the NLT2's decision, but merely the "right" of the translators to put forth the translation they consider best, particularly when they have taken the trouble to document the alternative "conventional" interpretation. The translators obviously made the decision after deliberation.

Finally, if your goal is to omit "idiosyncratic" interpretations, may I suggest that you should remove quite a few posts from your blog?

[JohnFH]

Suzanne,

I repeat, one cannot expect the footnotes in a Bible like NLT to be read, much less quoted, by most people. I seem to remember that you independently noted the very issue I raise on your blog. Have you removed that post from your site? Have you changed your mind?

Iyov,

It is not proper to compare a translation in a blog post to a Bible translation designed for use in worship. In the consulting I have done for a translation team, I did not push my idiosyncratic interpretations, even if I'm convicned they are right. I have greater resepct for tradition than that.

If any of my interpretations gain wide acceptance one day, I will be overjoyed to see them included in a translation for use in worship.

You misunderstood my point about NEB to REB. The former is much more fun from a scholar's point of view (we get to try to figure out what that mad-hat G. R. Driver was up to). But NEB is not appropriate for use in worship and devotional study. You are well aware, I imagine, that that is one reason REB came to be. No use pretending otherwise.