Alternative Translations

To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” Genesis 3:16 NASB (1995)

Pain in childbirth – Yesterday we discovered (again) that the addition of the diacritical mark indicating syllables under the supposed repeated word rābâ is the result of Masoretic standardization.  If we ignore the Masoretic tradition and pay attention only to the consonants, we find not a repeated word but rather two Hebrew words, one for great and one for ambush.  The meaning of the verse is significantly altered—from some sort of punishment of the woman to God’s compassionate acknowledgement of the serpent’s deception.  That, of course, does not remove the consequences, but it certainly removes the Christian/Jewish interpretation that somehow pain in childbirth is a Genesis curse.

We noted that having children is considered a blessing and a time of joy, not a reminder of the disaster in the Garden.  That means that the subsequent words, translated as “pain in childbirth” must also be reconsidered.

The first term is ʿiṣṣābôn, from the root ʿāṣab.  The verb means “to grieve, displease, vex,” and the noun “sorrow, toil.”  It does not exclusively mean physical pain.  Keep this in mind while we look at the second word, hērāyôn.  hērāyôn means conception, from hārâ, “to be with child.”  Consider the English translation.  Are we ready to suggest that God will “greatly multiply your pain” in conception?  Might I suggest that this is the last thing we associate with sexual intercourse (conception).  Yes, bearing children might be painful, but conception certainly isn’t!

Notice that the same root but a different word is used in the second part of this verse, “in pain you will bring forth children.”  That word is ʿeṣeb.  If the first occurrence of ʿiṣṣābôn is about sexual intercourse, aren’t we required to treat the second occurrence with the same emotional overtones?  What if both terms are about emotions, not physics? We have to look beyond the assumed “pain” and ask if there is something happening here with relational connections.

Meyers points us in the right direction:

Gen. 3:16 represents a special case in our understanding of ʿiṣṣābôn and ʿeṣeb.  The traditional translations render both terms with words for physical pain.  Since ʿṣb II refers more to mental than physical pain, however, this traditional interpretation must be called into question. . . In the nuanced biblical lexical field of pregnancy and birth, the latter does not refer to the actual process of childbirth.  Since neither conception nor pregnancy is painful, the ʿiṣṣābôn connected  with pregnancy cannot mean “pain.”  The first part of v. 16 therefore says that God will increase the number of the woman’s pregnancies and also the amount of hard work she has to do, for in ancient agricultural society women performed a high percentage of the necessary tasks.  The second clause of v. 16 deals with the theme of “having children”: it does not necessarily refer to the process of childbirth itself . . . Thus, the meaning of ʿeṣeb in this text is ambiguous: it can mean “labor” and “work” and intensify that statement of the preceding clause; it can refer to the psychological stress of family life; or it can mean both.  But it does not mean physical pain.[1]

Now think of the similarity between Adam’s punishment and the woman’s.  Sorrow and toil dominate God’s pronouncement in relation to origin.  That’s the real point.  The ground from which Adam was taken will now be a source of sorrow and toil because it will resist his purpose.  In like manner, the source of the woman, namely, the man, will now be experienced in sorrow and toil, not in loving mutual respect as intended.  And children?  Not “pain in childbirth” but rather the sorrow and toil of relationships (there’s another point here too).

We might also notice the assonance between the woman ʾiššâ  אִשָּׁה and the punishment ʿiṣṣābôn  עִצָּבוֹן  It’s almost poetic.

Last point.  The English translation “bring forth children” is not correct.  It’s been contextualized.  That is to say, we expect the woman to have sons and daughters so we treat the word as a collective “children,” but the text doesn’t actually say this.  The word is bānîm.  It means “sons,” not “children.”  As you recall, the rest of this story is about sons and the tragedy (sorrow) that accompanies them.  Furthermore, sons, not daughters, represent an extension of the sorrow experienced with the true object of the ezer kenegdo, namely, the husband.  Finally, Genesis 4:1 clearly tells us that the woman, now named, tries to substitute a son in place of the husband.  More sorrow.

In the end, this verse, so critical to the modern religious view of women, cannot support the misogyny found in religious circles.  It just isn’t about childbirth at all.  It’s about the destruction of ideal relationships, for both the man and the woman.  Robert Alter reminds us that the typical translation is a violation of “the cardinal principle not to translate according to context.”  We would do well to listen.

Topical Index: hērāyôn, childbirth, pain, ʿiṣṣābôn, ʿeṣeb, Genesis 3:16

[1] C. Meyers, ʿāṣab, TDOT, Vol. XI, p. 280.  Please note that in my book Guardian Angel I incorrectly cited this as Vol. IX rather than Vol. XI, a grievous typological mistake.  See also the Today’s Word edition of 31 May 2016.