Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Romans 1:27 need or use
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
A interesting variance, however, not found in the Greek translation, is found in Romans 1:27

All translations have 'natural use of woman'.
The aramaic however, also is used in 2 Corinthians 11:9, where the word is used for 'need(s)'.
Most modern translations, avoid translating 'use', but they translate it as if the Greek word for 'use' can be implicitely understood as 'dealings with women'. (which is a weird rendering, since it seems that no other instance in the NT using that Greek word, means the same).

In Greek, or most English translations, Paul seems to say: "Women, are utils of man." Which is quite offending.

In Payne Smith 162 we see that the same word also can be translated into a sentence like
"natural need of women".

What do you think about this?
This word h'shah'tha, might remotely be understood as 'reproductive compatibility,'
as relating to the root hush, which means things along the lines of haste or readiness [that is accessibility, and elliptically: interoperability].
This is a plausible explanation of what Paul means by 'need' here.

See how Vulgate handles this word:
In Daniel 3:16 - Vulgate interprets "la hash'hin anahna" as 'We have no occasion.'
In Ezra 6:9 - Vulgate interprets "umah hash'han" as 'And if it shall be necessary.'

Interestingly enough, Peshitta replaces "hash'han" in Ezra 6:9 with 'desire,' or as Lamsa renders it, 'wish.'
Following this reading, it may also be plausible that he's referencing the 'natural desire of (or, for) women,' which sounds more plausible than all of the above possibilities for this word.
distazo Wrote:A interesting variance, however, not found in the Greek translation, is found in Romans 1:27

All translations have 'natural use of woman'.
The aramaic however, also is used in 2 Corinthians 11:9, where the word is used for 'need(s)'.
Most modern translations, avoid translating 'use', but they translate it as if the Greek word for 'use' can be implicitely understood as 'dealings with women'. (which is a weird rendering, since it seems that no other instance in the NT using that Greek word, means the same).

In Greek, or most English translations, Paul seems to say: "Women, are utils of man." Which is quite offending.

In Payne Smith 162 we see that the same word also can be translated into a sentence like
"natural need of women".

What do you think about this?

For whatever it's worth, distazo, I can offer you my interpretation of Romans 1:27 based on my understanding of the Aramaic word, HshaHtha as used in the modern vernacular.

It can mean "suited"; "intended for"; "used for", etc. In this respect, I think the English word "use" comes close to the intended meaning. We have the apostle Paul saying that a male should not be performing with another male a sexual act that is best suited for a female body and vice versa.
Hi Mshikaya,

I understand your explanation.
However, Payne Smith offers two meanings, one would be 'use' , the other would be 'need'.
Because I think that it is quite offense to say that men 'use' a women, compared to 'need' a women I was wondering if the second translation, 'need' could be used too.

Especially because (and here I am no aramaic speaker, but I use the lexicon of dukhrana.com) the same word is used in 2 corinthians 11:9 (and some other verses) where it _is_ translated to 'need' (not to 'use').

Now I am sure I could be mistaken for comparing hashatha in e.g. 2 Co 11:9 to Romans 1:27.
If so, please explain .
distazo Wrote:Hi Mshikaya,

I understand your explanation.
However, Payne Smith offers two meanings, one would be 'use' , the other would be 'need'.
Because I think that it is quite offense to say that men 'use' a women, compared to 'need' a women I was wondering if the second translation, 'need' could be used too.

Especially because (and here I am no aramaic speaker, but I use the lexicon of dukhrana.com) the same word is used in 2 corinthians 11:9 (and some other verses) where it _is_ translated to 'need' (not to 'use').

Now I am sure I could be mistaken for comparing hashatha in e.g. 2 Co 11:9 to Romans 1:27.
If so, please explain .

Hi distazo,

What Aramaic bible are you looking at? I don't see the same word used in 2 Corinthians 11:9 and Romans 1:27. Perhaps that's where the confusion lies.
Akhi,

I might have been referring the wrong text <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Colossians 2:23
It ends with "only those things which satisfy the needs (Hashatha) of the flesh..."

THank you for sharing your insights