Hi Matthew, in case you’re interested, here is an article I’ve written about Beautiful Union in which I challenge Butler’s use of a so-called quote from Augustine.
The torture which Jesus suffered on the Cross must NOT be likened to sexual intercourse between husband and wife.
Thanks for this great review, Matthew. I agree that "wayyabo eleha" should not be understood anatomically.
You may already be familiar with Robert Alter's discussion of the three Hebrew terms for sexual intercourse, but I'm putting it here in case you or your readers are unaware of what Alter says.
To make it easier to comprehend Robert Alter's explanation of the three Hebrew phrases used for sexual intercourse, I have added paragraph breaks and made some text bold. I've also added Strong's Concordance numbers.
Transcribed from Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, Vol 1, p xxxi ——
Though many recurring biblical terms have serviceable English equivalents, there are instances in which a translation must make another kind of compromise because, given the differences between modern and biblical culture, the social, moral and ideological connotation of terms in the two languages do not adequately correspond.
Consider the tricky case of verbs for sexual intercourse. In English, these tend to be either clinical and technical, or rude, or bawdy, or euphemistic, and absolutely none of this is true for the verbs used for sex in the Bible.
In Genesis, three different terms occur: "to know," "to lie with," and "to come into."
"To know," H3045 with one striking antithetical exception, indicates sexual possession by a man of his legitimate spouse. Modern solutions such as "to be intimate with," "to cohabit with," "to sleep with," are all egregiously wrong in tone and implication. Fortunately the King James Version has established a strong precedent in English by translating the verb literally, and "carnal knowledge" is part of our language, so it is feasible to preserve the Hebrew usage in translation.
"Lie with" H7901 is a literal equivalent of the Hebrew, though in English it is vaguely euphemistic, whereas in Hebrew it is a more brutally direct or carnally explicit idiom for sexual intercourse, without, however, any suggestion of obscenity.
The most intractable of the three expressions is "to come into" or "to enter." H935 In non-sexual contexts, this is the ordinary biblical verb for entering, or arriving. "To enter," or "to come into," however, is a misleading translation because the term clearly refers not merely to sexual penetration but to the whole act of consummation. It is used with great precision — not registered by biblical scholarship — to indicate a man's having intercourse with a woman who he has not yet had as a sexual partner, whether she is his wife, his concubine, or a whore. The underling spatial imagery of the term, I think, is of the man's entering the woman's sphere for the first time through a series of concentric circles: her tent or chamber, her bed, her body. A translator, then, ought not surrender the image of coming into, but "come into" by itself doesn't quite do it. My own solution, in keeping with the slight strangeness of Hebraizing idioms of the translation as a whole, was to stretch an English idiom to cover the biblical usage: this translation consistently renders the Hebrew expression in question as "come to bed with," an idiom that in accepted usage a woman could plausibly use to a man referring to herself ("come to bed with me") but that in my translation is extended to a woman's reference to another woman ("come to bed with my slave girl") and to a reference in the third person by the narrator or a male character to sexual consummation ("Give me my wife," Jacob says to Laban, "and let me come to bed with her").
Fantastic explanation! I knew you would have helpful thoughts on this!
Hi Matthew, in case you’re interested, here is an article I’ve written about Beautiful Union in which I challenge Butler’s use of a so-called quote from Augustine.
The torture which Jesus suffered on the Cross must NOT be likened to sexual intercourse between husband and wife.
https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/2023/07/03/the-torture-which-jesus-suffered-on-the-cross-must-not-be-likened-to-sexual-intercourse-between-husband-and-wife/
Thanks for this great review, Matthew. I agree that "wayyabo eleha" should not be understood anatomically.
You may already be familiar with Robert Alter's discussion of the three Hebrew terms for sexual intercourse, but I'm putting it here in case you or your readers are unaware of what Alter says.
To make it easier to comprehend Robert Alter's explanation of the three Hebrew phrases used for sexual intercourse, I have added paragraph breaks and made some text bold. I've also added Strong's Concordance numbers.
Transcribed from Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, Vol 1, p xxxi ——
Though many recurring biblical terms have serviceable English equivalents, there are instances in which a translation must make another kind of compromise because, given the differences between modern and biblical culture, the social, moral and ideological connotation of terms in the two languages do not adequately correspond.
Consider the tricky case of verbs for sexual intercourse. In English, these tend to be either clinical and technical, or rude, or bawdy, or euphemistic, and absolutely none of this is true for the verbs used for sex in the Bible.
In Genesis, three different terms occur: "to know," "to lie with," and "to come into."
"To know," H3045 with one striking antithetical exception, indicates sexual possession by a man of his legitimate spouse. Modern solutions such as "to be intimate with," "to cohabit with," "to sleep with," are all egregiously wrong in tone and implication. Fortunately the King James Version has established a strong precedent in English by translating the verb literally, and "carnal knowledge" is part of our language, so it is feasible to preserve the Hebrew usage in translation.
"Lie with" H7901 is a literal equivalent of the Hebrew, though in English it is vaguely euphemistic, whereas in Hebrew it is a more brutally direct or carnally explicit idiom for sexual intercourse, without, however, any suggestion of obscenity.
The most intractable of the three expressions is "to come into" or "to enter." H935 In non-sexual contexts, this is the ordinary biblical verb for entering, or arriving. "To enter," or "to come into," however, is a misleading translation because the term clearly refers not merely to sexual penetration but to the whole act of consummation. It is used with great precision — not registered by biblical scholarship — to indicate a man's having intercourse with a woman who he has not yet had as a sexual partner, whether she is his wife, his concubine, or a whore. The underling spatial imagery of the term, I think, is of the man's entering the woman's sphere for the first time through a series of concentric circles: her tent or chamber, her bed, her body. A translator, then, ought not surrender the image of coming into, but "come into" by itself doesn't quite do it. My own solution, in keeping with the slight strangeness of Hebraizing idioms of the translation as a whole, was to stretch an English idiom to cover the biblical usage: this translation consistently renders the Hebrew expression in question as "come to bed with," an idiom that in accepted usage a woman could plausibly use to a man referring to herself ("come to bed with me") but that in my translation is extended to a woman's reference to another woman ("come to bed with my slave girl") and to a reference in the third person by the narrator or a male character to sexual consummation ("Give me my wife," Jacob says to Laban, "and let me come to bed with her").