Gen 3:16 LXX & Susan T. Foh

From: clayton stirling bartholomew (
Date: Tue Jun 06 2000 - 15:08:34 EDT

25 years ago Susan T. Foh created a minor ripple in the biblical studies
world by publishing a paper called "What Is the Woman's Desire?" WTJ 37
(1975) 374-383. Foh abandoned the traditional understanding of teshuqah (see
U. Cassuto, Genesis) and suggested that we should understand teshuqah as a
woman's desire to dominate and control her man. Foh uses Gen 4:7 as a major
element in her argument. Several noteworthy luminaries including B.K. Waltke
and V.P. Hamilton have adopted this approach, however Waltke claims that he
didn't get the idea from S. T. Foh.*

All of this is old news (25 years old) but it still leaves a problem for
those who consider the LXX a serious source for understanding Genesis.
I have not seen anyone successfully combine the LXX reading APOSTROFH for
teshuqah (Gen 3:16 & Gen 4:7) with Susan T. Foh's reading of this text. V.P.
Hamilton mentions both issues (Genesis, NICOT) but does not really pull them
together into one solution.

It has been fashionable to understand APOSTROFH (Gen 3:16 & Gen 4:7) as a
text critical problem (See LEH on APOSTROFH) but J. W. Wevers (Notes on the
Greek Text of Genesis) rejects this. He suggests that the woman "returning"
to her husband makes sense without making a conjecture about a textual
discrepancy. Wevers follows the traditional understanding of teshuqah.

My question:

What light does the LXX reading APOSTROFH shed on Susan T. Foh's reading of
teshuqah in Gen 3:16 & Gen 4:7? Can we pull this all together and make sense
out if it?

Additional note:

Some of the comments on this passage in the scholarly literature sound like
Genesis is being read in light of the Marquis de Sade, e.g., the woman
suffers greatly while being dominated by the ruthless tyrant man and bearing
his children in excruciating pain but in spite of all her suffering she
always goes back to the man driven by her uncontrollable desire for him.
I am all for employing intertextuality where it makes sense but I think the
Marquis de Sade does not belong in a discussion of Genesis.

This aspect of the question is off topic, so if you want to respond to the
Additional Note do so off list. Otherwise please respond to "My question"
above. Thanks!


Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

* Bruce Waltke's statement is available here:

BTW, This question came up in a phone discussion last night with one of
Waltke's old students from the mid 70's.

B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:28 EDT