tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post3236189050778260333..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Men Ruling over Women? How Has That Worked?A. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-22291378451175014862016-09-26T21:26:45.734-07:002016-09-26T21:26:45.734-07:00Robert Stallman, thank you for your contribution t...Robert Stallman, thank you for your contribution to the dialogue here. I cannot let your comment pass, however, without noting that according to the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, the preposition <i>'al</i> (Hebrew אַל) is often substituted in the Hebrew text for the preposition <i>'el</i> (Hebrew עַל), <i> with the same meaning of "to, towards"</i>:<br /><br />"Or. ʾil, Sec. ελ: prep.; except Ex 3234 Jos 723 Is 3612 always אֶל־; by-form אֱלֵי־ Jb 322 526 1522 2919, cj. Ps 632 for בְּלִי and 859 for אַל־; often alternates with עַל, → Sperber 105: MHb., Lach., Ph. (Friedrich §250); Arm. mostly replaced by עַל (→ BArm.), DISO 13; Arb. ʾilāy; < *ʾil and *ʾilay, BL 640h: אֵלַי/לָֽי, אֵלַיִכְ/לָֽיִךְ (Sec. ηλαχ), אֵלָיו (K אֵלָו 1S 2213 Ezk 94), אֵלֵינוּ, אֲלֵיכֶמ/הֶם, occasionally אֲלֵכֶמ/הֶמ/הֶן (BL 252r), 3rd. pl. אֵלֵימוֹ (BL 215j) Ps 25: basic meaning towards; —1. used with actions and events directed towards something, like to go, to come, to throw Lv 116, to bring Gn 219, to look Is 822, to hear Gn 1611 ..."<br /><br />--Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1994–2000). <i>The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament</i> (electronic ed., p. 50). Leiden: E.J. Brill.<br /><br />So your point carries little weight in this discussion, unless you can point to a use in the Hebrew text of אֶל in connection with תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ that is at odds with its use in SSol. 7:10 (English text) -- or, if you prefer, 7:11 in the Hebrew text (because it treats our vs. 6:13 as its vs. 7:1, since it has ch. 6 ending with vs. 6:12). And as you yourself note, the Hebrew word "desire" ( תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔) appears only once with the variant אֶל (which in so many other cases equates with עַל), and twice with the preposition עַל, so the natural interpretation of it is to have the same sense in all three cases. (I would submit that to read the sense of אֶל as physically "upon" in the context of an abstract noun like "desire" would be a reading that is, without further textual evidence, anachronistic for our day and age.) A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-53309141789091486132016-09-26T13:10:40.886-07:002016-09-26T13:10:40.886-07:00You wrote, "Both Sam Powell and Scot McKnight...You wrote, "Both Sam Powell and Scot McKnight, in the posts cited above, point to the use of 'el in the Song of Solomon, verse 7:10." That is not quite right.<br />For the record, 7:10 (7:11 in the Hebrew Bible) which in English reads "and his desire is for me" does not have the Hebrew word 'el but rather the preposition 'al which can mean "on top of" (oh my!) or simply, "concerning" or "for." <br />Note: prepositions must be understood together with they words they appear with. Sometimes two "opposite" prepositions mean just about the same thing. For instance, "I want to write that up" and "I want to write that down." The more instances of pairing that we can find, the better we can tell what that pairing of words communicates.<br />Back to Scripture, this Hebrew word for “desire" (teshuqah) appears only three times in the Hebrew Bible. Both other places have 'el and are Genesis 3:16 and 4:7, the very verses under consideration in the post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06703558036963257098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-19142520310753856412016-09-25T14:57:37.923-07:002016-09-25T14:57:37.923-07:00Yes, I see how new translation seems to paint men ...Yes, I see how new translation seems to paint men and women as doomed to bicker, whereas the older translation is more subtle; in some way, a woman's distorted desires betray her and tie in to an equally distorted male hegemony. I think the implications of the older translation are far more interesting - and equally so in the verses about Cain, which you point out. But the "he will rule over you" in both translations is a recipe for friction between the sexes no matter what, because such domination is not the natural, good, pre-Fall state of things, but a fallout from sin, part of the great curse. I find it ironic that these verses have been used to justify male domination/female oppression/etc. If, under the curse (which is by definition a bad thing), women are dominated by men, then such a relational state must be antithetical to God's original vision. And of course that's what Christ came to re-instate. While we still live under the curse, we shouldn't lull ourselves into thinking that we aren't called to live beyond it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16476919553840317695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-50016122514012135362016-09-22T14:01:26.134-07:002016-09-22T14:01:26.134-07:00Generalizations are always subject to qualificatio...Generalizations are always subject to qualification, but <a href="http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-catholics-view-of-episcopal-feminist.html" rel="nofollow">current feminist theology</a> tends to see the female of the species as "oppressed" or "subjugated" by the male on account of the latter's preference for patriarchy -- and so the female should not be submissive, but fight back, and resist male domination. I claim that the new translation, by portraying men and women as permanently at odds with each other, supports that theology. The old (and traditional) translation of "desire for [or "toward"] your husband" has no such connotation; it states a truth about marriages that enjoy the blessing of God. See also Ephesians ch. 5: "Husbands, love your wives; wives, respect your husbands." A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-2074443995548072262016-09-22T10:53:18.411-07:002016-09-22T10:53:18.411-07:00I'm no linguist, but if "el" does co...I'm no linguist, but if "el" does connote "to" or "toward", the new translation of "el" to "contrary" or "against" imparts nearly the opposite meaning of the word. But why do you think the updated translation "underwrites current feminist theology"? The descriptive/prescriptive exegeses could apply to both translations.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16476919553840317695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-31648438308668687812016-09-22T06:15:13.887-07:002016-09-22T06:15:13.887-07:00Thanks for posting this.
To this pewsitter's ...Thanks for posting this.<br /><br />To this pewsitter's ears, the switch from "for" to "contrary to" does the most serious damage to Genesis 4:7. It sounds as if God is addressing Cain as a man without sin (a pelagian heresy?). "Original Sin" has already taken place by this time and man already is fallen. <br /><br />As far as Genesis 3:16 goes, the new translation seems to drive a wedge between man and wife which does more harm than good. <br /><br /> Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.com