Here‘s the English Standard Version syntax for Genesis 3:16 –

Here‘s the MT Hebrew syntax for Genesis 3:16 –

Here‘s the Isaac Leeser English syntax for Genesis 3:16 –

Here‘s the Julia Smith English syntax for Genesis 3:16 –

Here‘s the Everett Fox English syntax for Genesis 3:16 –

Here‘s the Robert Alter English syntax for Genesis 3:16 –

Here‘s the ESV Translation Philosophy with respect to syntax –

Translation Philosophy

The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original….

Therefore, to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original; and, as far as grammar and syntax allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence. Thus in each of these areas, as well as throughout the Bible as a whole, we have sought to capture the echoes and overtones of meaning that are so abundantly present in the original texts.

Could all the men (and only men) translating the ESV have decided to have their “plain English” somehow “capture the precise wording” and somehow also “capture the echoes and overtones” of the original author(s) of the original Hebrew of the MT with respect to the original syntax of Genesis 3:16?

In other words, let’s ask whether the ESV syntax for Genesis 3:16, using exactly the words of “the previous text,”could be thus –

For your husband shall be your desire,
     and he shall rule over you.”

or

For your husband your desire shall be,
     and he shall rule over you.”

or even

For your husband shall your desire be,
     and he shall rule over you.”

And let’s also ask whether the ESV syntax for Genesis 3:16, using exactly the words of “the permanent text,”could be thus –

Contrary to your husband shall be your desire,
     but he shall rule over you.”

or

Contrary to your husband your desire shall be,
    but he shall rule over you.”

or even

Contrary to your husband shall your desire be,
    but he shall rule over you.”

Our answer really can be “yes” in all six instances. The English Standard Version English syntax is no less strange, no less plain, no less forbidding when “your husband” is fronted.

Plain English permits “Your desire” to be fronted as much as plain English also permits “For your husband” to be fronted. And “Contrary to your husband” may be fronted in plain English with ESV standard permission too.

The failure to “front” the prepositional phrase “For your husband” – and also the failure to front the phrasal prepositional phrase “Contrary to your husband”- is a failure of the ESV Translation Philosophy to emphasize the “‘word-for-word’ correspondence” between the original Hebrew and the ESV plain English. It is a failure “to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of [the Genesis 3:16] Bible writer.” It is not “letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original” and, again, a failure “to capture the echoes and overtones of meaning that are so abundantly present in the original texts.”

So what? Why should the translation team of men (and only men) be held accountable to the explicit principles of their published Translation Philosophy?

Well, for one thing, their readers who buy the Crossway Bible called the ESV are now stuck with one-and-only-one permanent reading of the text of Genesis 3:16.

And, had the men translating the ESV and those making the final few changes actually followed their own principles of translation, then the Hebrew syntax might have guided them to the Hebrew meaning.

And –

Contrary to your husband shall be your desire,
     but he shall rule over you.”

– may have just seemed, in its meaning because of its syntax, just a little too blatant an overtranslation, more clearly a male-supremacist man-only sexist interpretation.

(But tucking the “contrary to” further away in the sentence permanently is a little more subtle since the correspondence, or mis-correspondence, between the Hebrew and the ESV plain English words is hidden in perpetuity by the mis-matched syntax.)