Suzanne McCarthy on Genesis 3:16
Well before the ESV Permanent text announcement and the blogging around the peculiarity of the new and now-final rendering of Genesis 3:16, Suzanne McCarthy had a few things to say.
Rather, she asked a few things and engaged in research and conversation. For example, in one reply to one commenter, she said:
My main purpose in this post, is to ask if Pagnini and so on used a translation that was pejorative to women.
This post about which there was the discussion is the one here, called Rashi, Pagnini, Zwingli and a woman’s desire.
When she wrote that, she had already puzzled a good bit of the questions. And a couple of years earlier she showed that when writing, Pagnini and Bushnell.
She clearly did not agree with Catherine “Kate” Bushnell on everything, and especially not simply because she also was a woman. And yet Suzanne did list her with other notable scholars in this post she entitled, Female Biblical Scholars Meme.
These years, when she was engaging others in talk about Genesis 3:16 and how the Hebrew had been translated, Suzanne was acutely aware how male translation bias, particularly how “complementarian” man-superiority, entered into Bible translations such as the ESV. Here is the entire concise post that gets right to this, with links to others, including to two of us who would become with her BLT co-bloggers right here (and if you follow the comments afterwards you’ll find a third eventual BLT co-blogger in the mix):
No women Bible scholars?Apparently, according to the ESV Study Bible, there are no women qualified to write commentary on the Bible. This came up in a comment on my post a couple of days ago. Marg has taken up this point in her own post. I also found her story of moving towards biblical equality to be very compelling – and amusing. Thank you, Marg.
What do you think Suzanne would make of how the Hebrew grammar and syntax goes now, and how it forever like that goes on, for Genesis 3:16?