tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post6697452059984050254..comments2024-01-29T06:02:39.583-08:00Comments on Suzanne's Bookshelf: Rashi, Pagnini, Zwingli and a woman's desireSuzanne McCarthyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-55117761448060985252010-03-01T23:14:51.044-08:002010-03-01T23:14:51.044-08:00I don't think "turning" is right, bu...I don't think "turning" is right, but "desire" is such a vague word that it's hard to say it isn't right, although it is probably not sufficiently precise (I think <i>sexual</i> desire is probably not correct, it doesn't work in Gen 4:7, but you can desire all sorts of things!).<br /><br />Given that the English "desire" in Gen 3:16 has prompted such a diverse array of interpretations (psycho-sexual desire, desire for intimacy, desire to dominate, craving, and so forth), I suspect it is difficult to be too dogmatic about how earlier translators understood the language without more information that I have at hand. So while I don't think <i>desiderium</i> necessarily implies "lust" or something like that, and I wouldn't read it that way, I can't rule out that sort of understanding for Pagnini. I'd need to know more about what he said about Gen 3:16 to get a better idea of precisely what nuances he attached to the term!Martin Shieldshttp://blog.shields-online.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-36927771766067415742010-03-01T16:52:17.840-08:002010-03-01T16:52:17.840-08:00I understand you to say that neither "turning...I understand you to say that neither "turning" nor "desire" is the meaning? Is that right? <br /><br />My main purpose in this post, is to ask if Pagnini and so on used a translation that was pejorative to women. I don't think they did. They thought that is what the word meant. Don't you think? Even if they were wrong.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-79199948624686282282010-03-01T16:18:01.355-08:002010-03-01T16:18:01.355-08:00It seems likely that "turning" derives f...It seems likely that "turning" derives from a misunderstanding of תשוקה or else either a misreading of it as תשובה (which is sometimes rendered in the LXX by αποστρπφη as תשוקה is in Gen 3:16; 4:7) or else the appearance of that term in its Vorlage. The Targum's use of תוב also points to the Hebrew root שוב.<br /><br />So I think that these do not offer much assistance in understanding תשוקה in these passages.<br /><br />Further, the appearance of the term in Song 7:11 is not particularly strong evidence that "desire" is appropriate since the Song elsewhere uses otherwise harsh language which is transformed in the context of a love song into a means by which the emotional depth of the message is expressed.Martin Shieldshttp://blog.shields-online.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-37772460393158582042010-03-01T12:53:13.912-08:002010-03-01T12:53:13.912-08:00Tyndale also used lust, and I have now seen from o...Tyndale also used lust, and I have now seen from other writing of his that lust did not have a negative connnotation for Tyndale.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-83977656305112594532010-02-15T20:23:51.898-08:002010-02-15T20:23:51.898-08:00Thanks, Peter,
Yes, I think lust was a good tran...Thanks, Peter, <br /><br />Yes, I think lust was a good translation at the time, meaning "desire." And Jim West has kindly confirmed by email that Zwingli wrote, <br /><br />un zu deinem man deine gelust oder begird<br /><br />All that I am trying to show is that Bushnell has missed some of the details here, and it could be cleared up.<br /><br />Overall, I think Bushnell's work is very good, but this detail has always puzzled me.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-18571183387864491692010-02-15T01:50:37.587-08:002010-02-15T01:50:37.587-08:00Well, Suzanne, I don't think much of the Wikip...Well, Suzanne, I don't think much of the Wikipedia article. Its etymology section doesn't give the etymology at all, it just hints at a false etymology from <i>lustrum</i>. This is the real etymology, according to <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lust" rel="nofollow">the Online Etymology Dictionary</a>:<br /><br />O.E. <i>lust</i> "desire, pleasure," from P.Gmc. *<i>lustuz</i> (cf. O.S., O.Fris., Du., Ger. <i>lust</i>, O.N. <i>lyst</i>, Goth. <i>lustus</i> "pleasure, desire, lust"), from PIE *<i>las-</i> "to be eager, wanton, or unruly" (cf. L. <i>lascivus</i> "wanton, playful, lustful;" see <i><b>lascivious</b></i>).<br /><br />The entry then continues with this definition which explains how the meaning of the word developed in a negative direction only under the influence of Bible translations:<br /><br />In M.E., "any source of pleasure or delight," also "an appetite," also "a liking for a person," also "fertility" (of soil). Sense of "sinful sexual desire, degrading animal passion" (now the main meaning) developed in late O.E. from the word's use in Bible translations (e.g. <i>lusts of the flesh</i> to render L. <i>concupiscentia carnis</i> [I John ii 16]); in other Germanic languages, the cognate words tend to still mean simply "pleasure." The verb is first attested early 13c., "to please, delight;" sense of "to have a strong sexual desire (for or after)" is first attested 1520s in biblical use.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-92186948053793208292010-02-14T20:20:19.131-08:002010-02-14T20:20:19.131-08:00Peter,
Wikipedia has a good article on lust. I th...Peter,<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> has a good article on lust. I think for Coverdale it was a good translation, but perhaps was misused by others later. <br /><br />Personally I think inappropriate attention has been given to this phrase. It seems to be a commentary on one of the sorrows of women, who in those days may have ended up in a polygamous marriage or a marriage otherwise without love.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-19323988923632650672010-02-14T15:29:15.427-08:002010-02-14T15:29:15.427-08:00Teshuqah is found in 3 places in the OT. In SOS i...Teshuqah is found in 3 places in the OT. In SOS it is clearly a good thing.Donald Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904992652259586383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-57554754423490540892010-02-14T13:15:27.752-08:002010-02-14T13:15:27.752-08:00I do not have the tools with me to check at the mo...I do not have the tools with me to check at the moment, but I remember searching for other occurrences of this word in the OT and found it in Song of Songs! I came to the conclusion that 'desire' was a good translation, as indeed when it is used to describe sins 'desire' over Cain!Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03739784110428028221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-19678948022294619602010-02-14T11:52:11.021-08:002010-02-14T11:52:11.021-08:00Turning away from God and toward her husband is ex...Turning away from God and toward her husband is exactly what happened as a result of the fall. Ergo, we got Patriarchy.<br /><br />I am not a scholar to answer your question but it is interesting to see the progression of the translation on Bushnell's chart. You can see it progress to what we now see as the main interpretation many years after her book: That women desire to usurp the authority of their husbands.<br /><br />When in fact, God was predicting women would turn away from Him and toward their husbands. Denoting that God would not be their leader. The husband would.Linhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04723395060585207854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-27212316894410537162010-02-14T10:57:39.968-08:002010-02-14T10:57:39.968-08:00And what did "lust" mean anyway, in Cove...And what did "lust" mean anyway, in Coverdale's time? As I understand KJV and Book of Common Prayer English, at that rather later time it had a meaning more like modern "desire", perhaps negative but not purely sexual as in modern English. Perhaps it was at that time a good translation of Zwingli's supposed German "Lust".Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-35293676842916372882010-02-14T06:55:35.332-08:002010-02-14T06:55:35.332-08:00FWIIW, I think Bushnell goes too far here. That w...FWIIW, I think Bushnell goes too far here. That was in reaction to the rabbis going WAY too far in saying there were 10 curses on Eve when there were actually none.<br /><br />I have no problem with translating it as desire. The key as I understand it is to recognize that not all 5 things mentioned in Gen 3:16 need to be bad things. If you assume they are all bad, then there could be a concern with "desire". But if you see it as God giving info to the woman, I do not see a problem.Donald Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904992652259586383noreply@blogger.com