04.04. Thou Art Turning...and
CHAPTER 4 Thou Art Turning . . . and
Now we must consider the most serious mistranslation in the English version of the Bible. This mistranslation lies at the root of all the misinterpretations of the words of Paul in the New Testament. Tears of blood would never avail to wash away the tragic consequences to the womanhood of the world.
Dr. Bushnell’s hook devotes many pages to the consideration of the subject, examining all the Scriptures concerned and drawing upon the facts of history. She shows the way in which in the early centuries of the Christian era rabbinical teaching gradually began to penetrate the Christian Church on this particular question until it colored Christian theology the wide world over. In these days of enlightenment and freedom for women in general, we might see that we need not trouble about the rendering of Genesis 3:16, except that we find a reference to it placed again and again in the margins of the New Testament, showing that the fundamental mistranslation in Genesis perpetually colored the minds of translators in interpreting the language of St. Paul. For instance, we find in one version of the New Testament a note in the margin of 1 Corinthians 11:3, saying, "cf. Genesis 3:16. The woman’s veil, or head covering, is a symbol of this subordination"; again in 1 Corinthians 14:34, a marginal reference says, "cf. Genesis 3:16"; and yet again in 1 Timothy 2:11, to the word "subjection" is placed the reference "cf. Genesis 3:16." All showing that Genesis 3:16 is supposed to interpret the words of Paul in these particular passages in the New Testament.
It is necessary, therefore, to turn to this passage and show how seriously this verse has been mistranslated, so that its sinister influence upon the interpretation of the language of Paul may be destroyed. The Revised Version gives the verse in Genesis 3:16 as follows:
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
We cannot attempt to give but a fraction of the light thrown by Dr. Bushnell on the whole passage in the original Hebrew. She lays firm foundations for her statements by first giving explanations and examples of the form of the Hebrew characters, so that all students of her lessons might understand what is generally known only by Hebrew scholars. She explains the minute care taken by the Jews in transcribing their scriptures, so that the "original text has been preserved in MSS. with scarcely an important change." She knows the difference between "lawful" and " unlawful" textual criticism, the one being a lawful examination of the work of transcribers and translators and the latter a manipulation of the text itself; she carefully distinguishes between the original text of the Bible as "inspired, infallible and inviolable," and translations of the Bible as necessarily open to question where they do not accurately give the sense of the original. (1).
All this is important for proving the statements upon which such vital issues depend; for it will be seen, as we go further, how different is the meaning of Genesis 3:16 from that which has been given to it by commentators for centuries of the Christian era. The greatest and most grievous mistranslation in the verse is the word translated in the R.V. "desire," for in its correct rendering the whole meaning of the passage is changed. The word in Hebrew, says Dr. Bushnell, is used only three times in the Old Testament-in Genesis 3:16, Genesis 4:7, and Song of Solomon 7:10. ’’The original word is teshuqa, and as it only occurs three times in the Hebrew Bible, its sense must be fixed, (1) by studying its relation to other words in the sentences where it occurs, (2) by studying its derivation and structure, (3) by studying the way it is rendered in the ancient versions of Scripture."
Dr. Bushnell shows the use of the word in the following simple way:
Genesis 3:16, ’’and-to-Adam.’’ Eve’s ’’teshuqa’’
Genesis 4:7, "and-to-Cain." Abel’s ’’teshuqa.’’
Song of Solomon 7:10,"and-to-the-church." Christ’s "teshuqa."
What is said (typically) of Christ must have the same meaning in Abel or Eve! But what do the ancient versions say? How do they translate "teshuqa’’? we find that every version up to one hundred years after Christ, e.g., the Septuagint Greek, the Syriac Peshito, the Samaritan and Old Latin, all render the word as "turning.’’ God said that Eve was "turning" to Adam; that Abel was "turning’’ to Cain, and (Song of Solomon 7:10) that Christ is "turning’’ toward His Bride, the church. The meanings are obviously the same. But this is not all of the amazing truth. The Hebrew word which has been rendered ’’conception" in this verse in English is not the one usually used for that word 1. in the Hebrew language, for it is two letters short. One scholar says ’’it is an abnormal formation, which occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament." And a very high lexical authority calls it a ’’contraction or erroneous.’’ So in translating the very words of God-upon which the lives of millions of the human race depended- some translators have added two missing letters to a word which they describe as a ’’contraction" instead of translating it exactly as it was written, when it would give the meaning of "sighing." That this is correct is proved by the fact that the Septuagint Greek version, which is the first and oldest translation of the Hebrew Bible, renders the word ’’sighing’’ as it is in the original. The word ’’ sorrow," too, in the same sentence as well as in the following one, is the one used of Adam in the next verse, and so it can have no special and peculiar application to Eve as a woman And yet here is another revelation of far reaching import in this extraordinarily misinterpreted text. The words shall be in the last section of the verse are in italics in the A.V. and therefore admittedly not in the original Hebrew. Eve’s "turning’’ to Adam was not the result of a "shall" -preordained of God. Nor was its result the outcome of a ’’shall.’’ ’’And he will rule over thee,’’ said the Omniscient Jehovah as He foresaw what the consequences would be.
If no "shall’’ rule is to be found in the Hebrew original, and ’’all the ancient versions testify that the verb is a simple future," therefore no ’’rule’’ was preordained by God. The words contained ’’a warning and a prophecy,’’ writes Dr. Bushnell, ’’of what has been abundantly fulfilled, . . . especially in heathen lands.’’ Dr. Bushnell says, too, ’’If it be contended that the context proves... an imperative, then the previous sentences must he imperative:’’ Must the serpent bruise the heel of the woman’s Seed, whether he will or no! Must man rule woman whether he will or no?’’
Now with these facts in mind, let us read Genesis 3:16 as Dr. Bushnell renders it:
Unto the woman he said, A snare hath increased thy sorrow and thy sighing; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children; thou art turning to thy husband , and he will rule over thee.
We don’t have space for giving Dr. Bushnell’s reasons for using the expression ’’a snare’’; but it takes us back to verse 15 which contains the Evangel Promise to the woman, that through her should come a Seed who would finally crush the serpent who had caused her fall. The primary point which we need to grasp is the fact that the text as it stands in the original Hebrew does not contain a ’’law’’ of preordained subordination of woman, such as is suggested by its use in New Testament margins; and, incidentally, it is thereby proved that words "as saith the law’’ used in 1 Corinthians 14:34 do not refer to Genesis 3:16. ’’Rule" there would be, the Lord himself said, but not a "rule’’ ordained by Him to be perpetuated as a ’’commandment of the Lord’’ in the Christian Church in the time to come. The most heart-stirring point of all in Dr. Bushnell’s exegesis of the whole passage is the way it is made clear that Eve went forth from Eden not ’’cursed’’ but a forgiven and restored believer, ’’elevated in her own person’’ to the ’’honourable position of an enemy of Satan,’’ and constituted ’’the progenitor of the coming destroyer of Satan and his power.’’ The reason for this is to he found in Eve’s answer to Jehovah when she was asked what she had done, for her reply really involved a "choice’’ and an exposure of the character of Satan when she said that he had ’’beguiled her.’’ By doing this, she "created an enmity between herself and him,’’ which God confirmed in His words to Satan, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman." Dr. Monroe Gibson says, " There is, properly speaking, no present tense in Hebrew-only the past and future.... So here, it is not only ’I will put enmity;’ but ’I am putting, and will put’ enmity between thee and the woman. The work is begun. . . She is the first type and representative of all the separated ones who constitute the church of God." In brief, writes Dr. Bushnell, God said in effect, "She has chosen to make the breach; I will widen it." This is a justifiable conclusion if we think of all that must have passed through the mind of Eve when she heard the voice of God in the Garden. She realized that the serpent had deceived her and when asked, said so, without shrinking from the certain result of arousing his enmity against her. She chose to speak the truth, and thereby began that enmity, which Jehovah confirmed as a special prerogative for herself and her (spiritual) Seed after her. This fixed enmity of the serpent accounted largely "for a whole train of evils, prophesied’’ in verse 16, concerning her after-path in life, for, Dr. Bushnell points out ’’God nowhere says that Eve’s sorrowful and oppressed part is ’ because’ she had done anything,’’ and as the words of the Lord to Eve, in Genesis 3:16, so closely follow upon those spoken to the serpent in Genesis 3:15, ’’we have sufficient reason for concluding that all ’this’ might result’’ through the enmity of Satan. But what ground is there for saying that Eve became a "believer,’’ the first believer on Jesus Christ restored to fellowship with the God she had disobeyed? The clue is hidden in the original Hebrew of Genesis 4:1. Eve gives evidence that she believed in God’s promise of a coming Victor over Satan when on the birth of her firstborn she exclaims, "I have gotten a man--even the Coming One." Canon Payne Smith says about this exclamation of Eve, ’’Jehovah means literally ’He will come, that is, ’The Coming One.’ The name is really man’s answer to and acceptance of the promise made in Genesis 3:15; and why should not Eve, to whom the promise was given, be the first to profess faith in it? . . . For her faith’s sake, the spirit of prophecy rested upon her, and she gave Him on whom her hopes were fixed the title which was to grow and swell onward till all inspired truth gathered round it . . ."-the name Jehovah, which is the New Testament name "Lord." That Eve believed God and His promise of a Saviour, and that it was "counted to her for righteousness’’ as much as to Abraham in later years, is to be seen also in the name which Adam gave her after their interview with God (cf. Genesis 3:20), and just before Jehovah himself clothed them with the skins of animals slain, preparatory to their leaving the Garden.
Let us turn again to the story. The verdict on Adam concluded with the words ’’dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Genesis 3:19), which was a verdict of death. But at once we read, "And the man called his wife’s name ’Eve’ [that is, living, or life, R V. m.], because she was the mother of all living." That is, writes Dr. Bushnell, ’’ marking the contrast between himself and Eve, Adam called his wife ’ Eve’--’living’ spiritually living,’’ and all believers are the ’’seed of the woman’’ in Christ--not merely "mankind." Delitzsch remarks about these words of Adam, ’’The promise purports truly a ’seed of the woman.’ In the very face . . . of the death with which he is threatened, the wife is for Adam the security for both. . .’’On the point as to all believers being the ’’seed of the woman,’’ Dr. Monroe Gibson asks, "Who are her seed?’’ and replies, ’’In a certain sense, of course, all mankind are ’’seed of the woman,’ but suppose you include all mankind where do the seed of the serpent come in? [with whom her seed are at enmity]. Is it not quite obvious that the ’ seed of the woman’ cannot mean all mankind but simply those... who are found . . . on the side of God and righteousness? Those who are of an opposite Spirit are the seed of the serpent, the ’children of the devil.’” But what about the prevalent idea that Eve was cursed and punished for her fall into the snare set forth for her? (1 Timothy 2:14). In the Scripture itself there is no curse mentioned as passed either upon Adam or Eve, but only upon the serpent and the ground; nor "does God lay any charge of express disobedience at the door of Eve.’’ Dr. Bushnell exhaustively treats in several lessons the historical causes for the false doctrine of ’’the curse on Eve,’’ clearly showing that it has penetrated into Christian theology from the Babylonian Talmud which appeared in 800 A.D. (3). in which is recorded the fable of "Ten curses against Eve,’’ most of these being unfit for quotation. The earliest Source was a pagan Greek myth which is recorded about 800 B.C. This came into Jewish teaching at a time called in Jewish history the "days of mingling"-the period of four hundred years between the close of the Old Testament and the opening of the New Testament-when the Jews tried to reconcile Jewish customs and the teachings of the Old Testament with Greek paganism. As we ponder over the painful story we do not wonder that Dr. Bushnell says, "The teaching that God punishes Christian women for the sin of Eve, is a wicked and cruel superstition, and unworthy the intelligence of Christians, ’’and, in addition to this, it has laid" a blighting hand upon woman’s self-respect, self-confidence and spiritual activity, from which causes the entire church of Jesus Christ suffers moral and spiritual loss." This brings us to the question as to how the mistranslation of Genesis 3:16 has crept into our English versions of the Scriptures if the Hebrew word teshuqa was always translated "turning’’ in all versions of the Old Testament up to at least 200 years after Christ. (4). Dr. Bushnell has devoted two lessons, together with a valuable chart, to making clear these vital facts, but we cannot attempt, even to summarize, the evidences she has collected with such painstaking research. The chart shows all the versions of the Scriptures with the dates when they were made and their various translations of the word teshuqa, right through the centuries down to the present time. The Latin
Vulgate, a version made under rabbinical influence in 282 A. D., rendered the word as "power’’ instead of "turning." And from it, and not direct from the original Hebrew, the first English version by Wycliffe, published in 1380, was made. Then after Wycliffe’s version and before any other English Bible appeared an Italian monk named Pagnino (or Pagnimus, Latin) translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin in 1528, and he was the first who translated teshuqua into the misleading and unjustifiable rendering which strangely has colored all the English versions to the present time (with the exception of Wycliffe’s Bible, already mentioned, and the Douay Bible, both of which were made direct from the Latin Vulgate of 282 A.D.). It was seven years after Pagnino’s version was published at Lyons that Coverdale’s English Bible appeared, and Tyndale’s Bible in the time between-both of which were published on the Continent, this probably accounting, says Dr. Bushnell, for their being influenced by Pagnino. At any rate, she says, ’’from the time Pagnino’s version appeared, every English version (except the two Vulgate referred to) has followed Pagnino’s rendering’’ of Genesis 3:16 up to the present day. This is enough to show the necessity for a different translation and interpretation of Genesis 3:16, although, observes Dr. Bushnell, the need "will scarcely be realized by those familiar with the usual teachings in our Bible Commentaries, which defy principles of morality and justice,’’ as well as "outrage the sense of the original words, as proved by the ancient versions."
Notes
1. Conybeare and Howson’s "Epistles of St Paul’’--the Classic upon the subject-with their valuable footnotes, illustrates the way in which the English text can be legitimately examined by the Bible student.
2. The word occurs in Ruth 4:13, Hosea 9:11, and nowhere else, arid is correctly translated in these passages.-Dr. Bushnell
3. Dr Bushnell says she gives this date on the authority of Prof Margoliouth of Oxford. It has often been fixed as early as 300 A D.
4. Dr. Bushnell adds a note pointing out that the Church Fathers seem to he ignorant of any other sense but ’ turning’ for the word teshuqa, e g . Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian. Origen, Epiphanius, Jerome. Ambrose, Augustine, Theodoret, all employ ’’turning’’ in one, two, or all three passages.