Introduction
Textual changes can happen for a variety of reasons. Some Hebrew consonants are very similar in shape, and they could be miscopied giving a different word as a result. Letters might be dropped, added or duplicated, or associated with the word following instead of the word proceeding. Scholars propose textual change for a variety of reasons and one such reason is where the use of a word seems to make no sense. However, each case of textual change needs to be assessed, especially when the reason is a supposed lack of intelligibility expressed by scholars. This is all the more important given the state of the text in Jesus’ day and his attitude to the text as something that could not be broken (John 10:35).
Genesis 3 and 4
The use of theshuqah in Gen 3:16b and Gen 4:7b is a case in point. Standard versions translate the word as “desire” (e.g. KJV, RSV, and NASB); however the database of usage is small with Song of Solomon 7:10 the only other use of the word. How then is the word to be translated in Genesis and is it the original word? [1]
The last clause in Gen 4:7 is,
And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Gen 4:7 (KJV)
The absence of a verb is indicated in the KJV with the italics, “shall be”, but the preposition (la) is clear and indicates direction “towards”.[2] The suffix “his” in “his desire” is masculine and so the statement being made is that Abel’s desire would be towards Cain. It is not “sin” personified crouching at the door whose desire is for Cain as “sin” is feminine.[3] This is further shown by the comparison with Gen 3:16 where two individuals are involved in respect of the “desire” and the “rule”; Gen 4:7b is part of an account about two individuals.
Song of Solomon 7
While we have assumed that theshuqah is properly translated as “desire” in Genesis, this cannot be taken for granted. We can ask, for example, whether the noun in Gen 4:7 denotes an object or an attitude. An example of object in this context could be a sin-offering lying at the door of the sanctuary, perhaps a lamb. The attitude under discussion is “desire”, but the noun could denote another attitude, perhaps “longing”, “want” or “need”.
The argument for the noun denoting an attitude is based in Song 7:10—there are two individuals involved and attitudes towards each other would seem to be the subject-matter. In Song 7, the man describes the woman in terms that manifest desire (vv. 1-9); in v. 10 the woman responds by describing an attitude of the man—theshuqah “toward me” (yl[[4]),and translators have rendered the attitude as “desire” on the basis of vv. 1-9. If we ask how we know today that a man desires a woman, then one way of answering this question is to ask whether the man speaks in the same fashion as vv. 1-9: this is the language of desire. The language we use is a key indicator of our inner attitudes.[5] A clear context in Song 7 for “desire” as the meaning of theshuqah clarifies the less clear context in Genesis 3 and 4.
Hapax Legomena
A thesis that the texts in Genesis were originally theshurah (gift) or theshu’ah (salvation) does not require a change to the Song text. The hypothesis of a change in Genesis is not one of accidental change due to copyist error in one text, but rather a proposal that two texts have undergone the same intentional change. It is less plausible to suppose two accidental errors than intentional change, but this would require some explanation of motivation and opportunity for the two changes. We need to postulate an editor who sees a typological connection between the two texts and changes the typology from theshurah (gift) or theshu’ah (salvation). If we postulate intentional change to the three texts, this is less plausible, as it requires an editor to see links between two widely separated texts (Genesis and Song of Solomon) and a need to change all three to make them consistent.
It is easier to postulate both accidental and intentional change for hapax legomena. Supplying an explanation of motivation and opportunity for the same change to multiple texts is less easy. If theshuqah was a hapax legomenon in Song 7, the context is a good paradigm for choosing some attitude or other for a translation; there is no pressure in Song 7 to emend the noun. With a male-female relationship being the focus of Genesis 3, maintaining the choice of “desire” in this case is also not difficult. It is the male-male relationship of Genesis 4 that brings pressure to bear on the choice of meaning.
Desire and Rule
In Genesis 3, the woman listens to the Serpent and gives the fruit to the man. The story has a sub-text about relationships that are not functioning in accordance with God’s commands. The man and the woman ought to have had dominion (rule) over the Serpent; the woman ought to have attended to the teaching of the man which he had received from God about the not eating of the tree. The relationship between the man and the woman is therefore the subject of Gen 3:16—there is an emphasis of rule on the part of the man.[6] The woman had desired the fruit of the tree and now her desire would be towards her husband.
The relationship between husband and wife in Genesis 3 is used as a model for Yahweh’s relationship with Israel (e.g. Isaiah 54), as well as Christ and the church (e.g. Ephesians 5). In this relationship the “man” has the rule, and in Genesis terms the “woman” has the “desire” towards God and Christ. This kind of male-female typology is carried in Genesis 4 because both “desire” and “rule” are mentioned with respect to two individuals. While Abel and Cain are both male, in typical terms, a male-female typology surrounding sacrifice is encoded.
Within the Law the administration of sacrifices was performed by men; the sacrifice of Christ was made and offered by the Second Man. The climax of the “Cain and Abel Sacrifices Story” has a male-female typology. If Cain were to offer acceptable sacrifices (Gen 4:7a), then Abel’s “desire” would be to his brother as the “man” offering and making the sacrifice on his behalf, and Cain would be the “man” to rule over Abel. As it happened, it was Abel’s sacrifice that was accepted as the Second Man out of the two men.
Septuagint and Masoretic Text
There is nothing grammatically difficult with Gen 4:7b; the difficulties that commentators discuss are with Gen 4:7a.[7] There is the difficult infinitive of “lifting up” rendered in the NASB as, “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up”? The NASB has inserted “your countenance” to make sense of the clause on the basis of such texts as Jer 3:12 and Job 11:15. And there is the phrase that is rendered in the KJV as “sin lieth at the door”.[8] This clause mixes a feminine noun with a masculine participle. However, there is no grammatical impetus for rejecting theshuqah in Gen 4:7b. The scholarly motivation for emendment stems from a lack of understanding of the typology of Gen 4:7b and the grammatical difficulties of Gen 4:7a.
The LXX has two words corresponding to theshuqah in the MT, which are apostrophē (Gen 3:16; 4:7) and epistrophē (Song 7:10). These are related compound nouns and this can be construed as evidence of either the same Hebrew word in the three source texts or related Hebrew words in the three texts. This line of reasoning is important because theshuqah is not a cognate word with theshurah (gift) or theshu’ah (salvation). If we use the LXX as evidence for deciding upon a Hebrew original, and theshuqah (desire), theshurah (gift) or theshu’ah (salvation) are the only proposed candidates, then one of these ought to be selected with apostrophē and epistrophē picking out different nuances of the relevant Hebrew word in the three texts. With Song 7 giving a clear lead for an attitude word of the “desire” family of words in v. 10, the LXX supports this choice for the two Genesis texts among the three candidates.
The basic sense of the two LXX words, apostrophē and epistrophē, is that of “turning”, and this can support the suggestion that the LXX translators had theshubah (return, e.g. 1 Sam 7:17) in their Hebrew text. However, the database for theshubah is small (8x) and the sense of “turning” is the turning of the year (5x, e.g. 2 Sam 11:1), turning back home (1x, 1 Sam 7:17) and the giving of an “answer” (2x, Job 21:34; 34:36). The LXX translators use epistrophē for the “turning” (theshubah) of the year and apostrophē for turning (theshubah) back home. This database of usage is not supportive of the proposal that theshubah is a “turning of the heart” in an individual, although it cannot be excluded if Gen 3:16b, 4:7b and Song 7:10 are said to be the only three examples.
The use of apostrophē in Gen 3:16b and Gen 4:7b but epistrophē in Song 7:10 requires some discussion. Elsewhere apostrophē is used of the “turning” to or away from God (e.g. Deut 31:18; Jer 5:6; 6:19; 8:5; Ezek 33:11). This sense offers a reason for the LXX choice of apostrophē in Genesis: viz., that the translators saw a nuance in the attitude of desire in Eve turning to her husband and Abel turning to Cain. Accordingly, we can say that unless the LXX translators were translating theshubah, it is more likely that they were translating theshuqah, an attitude word, rather than theshurah or theshu’ah.
The noun epistrophē and related verb is used for the idea of conversion in NT writings (e.g. Acts 7:39; 15:3).[9] Liddell & Scott catalogue the sense of “regard” and the idea of attention being paid to someone for classical Greek, as well as several ideas of “turning”.[10] Again, the use of the word in Song 7:10 allows for theshubah as well as an attitude word like theshuqah to be the original Hebrew for the LXX translator.
Jewish Targums
Jewish Targums[11] are evidence of early Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Sometimes they render their Hebrew text closely and at other times they are interpretative paraphrases. Onkelos renders the Hebrew of Gen 3:16 as “yet to your husband shall be your desire and he shall dominate you”. In Gen 4:7, the clause “and unto you will be his desire, and you will rule over him” is not represented. Pseudo-Jonathan has “yet your desire shall be for your husband; he shall rule over you” for Gen 3:16 and “Its desire will be towards you, but you will have dominion over it, whether to be innocent or to sin” for Gen 4:7b. Neofiti has “to your husband you will turn and he will have authority over you” for Gen 3:16, and omits the first part of Gen 4:7b keeping only “you shall rule it [sin]”.
These interpretative choices in the Targums suggest that, if anything, their respective Hebrew sources had an attitude word in Gen 3:16 and Gen 4:7; they support the current Masoretic text.
Conclusion
In this article we have argued for the integrity of the MT in Gen 3:16b, Gen 4:7b and Song 7:10. We have showed that an attitude word is required by the context of Song 7:10 and that theshuqah fits the context. An attitude word is also appropriate in Genesis 3 and 4 given the fact that the contexts there concern the relationship between two individuals. There is therefore no reason to emend theshuqah in Gen 3:16b and Gen 4:7b. Finally, we offered a male-female typology surrounding sacrifice which explained the use of theshuqah in Genesis 4.
[1] Transliteration follows the SBL general purpose style except in quotations from other authors where their style is retained.
[2] R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (2nd Edn; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976), 52-53.
[3] Contra C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 300.
[4] Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 51-52, notes the sense of direction and interest implicit in the preposition.
[5] G. Ryle, The Concept of Mind (London: Hutchinson, 1949) is the classic statement of this thesis in philosophical terms, but a modern statement can be found in A. Kenny, The Metaphysics of Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
[6] There is an added pronoun in the Hebrew giving, “he, himself will rule over you”.
[7] Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 299-300. H. Gunkel, Genesis (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997), 43-44.
[8] The best proposal is that the clause is “a sin-offering lies at the door”.
[9] J. E. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (2nd Ed.; 2 vols; New York: UBS, 1988-1989), 30.61.
[10] H. G. Liddell, and R. Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889), 303.
[11] Unless otherwise noted, citations from the Targums are taken from editions published in The Aramaic Bible Series (ed., M. J. McNamara; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988—). For an overall introduction to the Targums, see P. S. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed., M. J. Mulder; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 217-253.
The Library of St. Catherine’s Monastery digitises ancient texts