NOTE:
This post has been withdrawn. The post has been published in my book, Rereading the Biblical Text: Searching for Meaning and Understanding. The approach taken in the book is to compare how different translations have approached difficult texts in the Old Testament. The goal of the book is to invite readers to reread the biblical text in light of the new understanding of the intent of the original writer of the text. You can order the book from Amazon.
Rereading the Biblical Text
Visit my Amazon author’s page to purchase the book (click here).
Claude Mariottini
Emeritus Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
A Note About This Post:
Before “Psalm 127:3: Sons or Children?” was withdrawn for publication, “Psalm 127:3: Sons or Children?” was read by 4404 readers. “Psalm 127:3: Sons or Children?” was also shared 4 times by readers who enjoyed reading the post. You can read “Psalm 127:3: Sons or Children?” and other articles on problems in Bible translation by reading my book Rereading the Biblical Text: Searching for Meaning and Understanding. Below is the content of the book:
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments – Page xi
Abbreviations – Page xii
Introduction – Page xv
SECTION 1 — THE PENTATEUCH
Chapter 1. The Creation of Animals in Genesis 2:19 – Page 3
Chapter 2. The Serpent Was Right (Genesis 3) – Page 7
Chapter 3. The Seed of the Woman (Genesis 3:15) – Page 11
Chapter 4. Were They Really Giants? (Genesis 6:4) – Page 17
Chapter 5. “As Far as Dan” (Gen 14:14) – Page 20
Chapter 6. Abraham and the Promises of God – Page (Genesis 12:7) – Page 23
Chapter 7. The Sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22:8) – Page 26
Chapter 8. The Rape of Bilhah (Genesis 35:22) – Page 29
Chapter 9. Miriam, a Leader in Israel (Exodus 15:20) – Page 32
Chapter 10. Azazel (Leviticus 16:8-10) – Page 35
Chapter 11. Understanding Numbers 24:24 – Page 38
SECTION 2 — THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Chapter 12. The Levite and His Concubine (Judges 19:1–30) – Page 43
Chapter 13. The Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter (Judges 10:6–12:7) – Page 47
Chapter 14. The Fate of Jephthah’s Daughter (Judges 10:6–12:7) – Page 4750
Chapter 15. The Virginity of Jephthah’s Daughter (Judges 10:6–12:7) – Page 54
Chapter 16. Who Went Back to the City? (Ruth 3:15) – Page 59
Chapter 17. Was Ruth Barren? (Ruth 4:13) – Page 59
Chapter 18. King Saul: Little in His Own Eyes (1 Samuel 15:17) – Page 63
Chapter 19. How Old Was Saul? (1 Samuel 13:1) – Page 64
Chapter 20. David and Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4) – Page 67
Chapter 21. David’s Sons Were Priests ((2 Samuel 8:18) – Page 70
Chapter 22. “Him that Pisseth against the Wall” (1 Samuel 25:22) – Page 72
Chapter 23. Whose Cloak Did Ahijah Tear? (1Kinga 11:4–7) – Page 78
Chapter 24. The Challenges of Parenthood (2 Kinga 21:25–26) – Page 82
SECTION 3 — THE WISDOM AND POETICAL BOOKS
Chapter 25. Psalm 8:5: In Search of a Better Translation – Page 87
Chapter 26. Understanding Psalm 17:14 – Page 90
Chapter 27. Jezebel’s Wedding Song (Psalm 45:1–17) – Page 93
Chapter 28. Psalm 100:3: In Search of a Better Translation – Page 99
Chapter 29. Sons or Children? (Psalm 127:3-5) – Page 103
Chapter 30. Proverbs 29:18 – Page 106
Chapter 31. “Black and Beautiful” or “Black but Beautiful”? (Song of Songs 1:5) – Page 108
SECTION 4 — THE PROPHETICAL BOOKS
Chapter 32. The Use of Gender Inclusive Language (Isaiah 9:1) – Page 115
Chapter 33. “You Have Increased Their Joy” (Isaiah 9:3) – Page 118
Chapter 34. Who Will the Messiah Strike? (Isaiah 11:4) – Page 120
Chapter 35. The Way of the Lord (Isaiah 40:3) – Page 122
Chapter 36. “All Their Goodliness” (Isa 40:6) – Page 126
Chapter 37. The Proclaimer of Good News (Isaiah 40:9) – Page 129
Chapter 38. The Problem of Divorce in the Old Testament (Isaiah 50:1) – Page 132
Chapter 39. Beulah Land (Isaiah 62:4) – Page 135
Chapter 40. The Balm of Gilead (Jeremiah 8:22) – Page 138
Chapter 41. The Mother of Seven (Jeremiah 15:9) – Page 142
Chapter 42. The Coming of the Messiah (Daniel 9:25–27) – Page 144
Chapter 43. The Seventy Weeks of Daniel (Daniel 9:25–27) – Page 148
Chapter 44. The Knowledge of God (Hosea 4:1) – Page 152
Chapter 45. The Word “Hesed” in the Book of Hosea (Hosea 4:1) – Page 154
Chapter 46. The Word “Justice” in Amos (Amos 5:24) – Page 157
Chapter 47. “What the Lord Requires” (Micah 6:8) – Page 160
Bibliography – Page 165
Index of Subjects – Page 169
Index of Authors – Page 171
Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Documents – Page 173
Claude Mariottini
Emeritus Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
NOTE: Did you like this post? Do you think other people would like to read this post? Be sure to share this post on Facebook and share a link on Twitter or Tumblr so that others may enjoy reading it too!
I would love to hear from you! Let me know what you thought of this post by leaving a comment below. Be sure to like my page on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, follow me on Tumblr, Facebook, and subscribe to my blog to receive each post by email.
If you are looking for other series of studies on the Old Testament, visit the Archive section and you will find many studies that deal with a variety of topics.
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament 
IMHO even in the Jewish community that attempts to live according to the Torah the original sense of "banim" as sons is still primary. True, enough of the Western egalitarianism has seeped into Modern Jewish thought to have some influence, but the clear distinction between man and woman as having different roles, so much so that only through the marriage of these two different 'halves' can either be complete, means that lack of "sons" – children with the out-going face-the-world role, would be a handicap for a large family. Last note to those who do not understand – the root of those different roles is spiritual. The ramifications of the differences can manifest itself in social and behavioural ways, but this is secondary.I enjoy your posts. Thank you for sharing.
LikeLike
>Thank you for responding to my post.I accept that there are cases where banim uvanot is used to emphasise inclusiveness of sons and daughters. But there are also places where banim is undoubtedly used of gender mixed groups, or is qualified by zakar "male" e.g. Joshua 17:2. In Psalm 127:3 the parallel with a gender generic term strongly suggests the gender generic sense of banim.I accept that this suggestion could be overridden by the context. But that context can be interpreted in different ways. The majority of Bible translations, even the very conservative ESV as well as KJV, go with "children" here. Maybe this is a place where we cannot be certain, and so a footnote would be appropriate. But the evidence is certainly not convincing enough to support the 20th century innovation of reading only "sons".
LikeLike
>I have to comment again to get Blogger to accept my subscription to this comment thread.
LikeLike
>Yoel,Thank you for your comments. I believe Western egalitarianism has a place in today's society and I am the first one to recognize that both sons and daughters are blessings from the Lord.However, I also believe that we cannot change the meaning of Psalm 127:3 in order to meet today's expectations. We cannot change the realities of the past.I am happy to know that you enjoy my posts.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>Peter,Thank you for your comment. I enjoy reading your posts and am always challenged by what you write.I believe that the literary and cultural contexts behind Psalm 127:3 requires that banim be translated as "sons" and not "children." Just because the KJV translation uses "children" it does not mean that the KJV is right. There are many places in the KJV where their translation of specific verses is just not acceptable.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>I used to be fairly certain that the simile "like arrows in the hands of a hero, so are the sons of one's youth" reflected straightforwardly a military allusion, despite the fact that "speak with enemies in the gate" may be thought to have a forensic connotation. But I'm less certain these days. There are other readings of this simile. Arrows that are in the hand of a hero (or in his quiver) are also "things that are sent out so that the hero does not have to go." This might make better sense of their speaking in the gate, where one's enemies are mainly to be debated rather than shot. Even with a military metaphor, the point is that the hero doesn't actually fight. Just as it is YHWH who builds the house and guards the city, so it is YHWH who champions the hero's cause by means of (the divine gift of) sons. That makes sense. The other possibility, admittedly more of a stretch, comes from the fact that the hero fills his quiver מהם, fills it with the arrows that are in his hand. In fighting, one pulls arrows out of the quiver, one by one, for shooting. Multiple arrows in one's hand, and filling the quiver "from them" may imply that the hero is gathering arrows for placement in the quiver rather than shooting them. If that's the metaphor, then the point may not be so much his ability to fight as the fact that sons born while one is young allow a certain amount of leisure when one is old. It is, after all, they who are doing whatever it is they're doing in the city gate.
LikeLike
>Loren,Thank you for your comment. You have a very interesting approach to this text. I believe that your first suggestion is better than the second.I believe that the litigation against one's enemy at the city gate would require the presence of the father, since the whole emphasis of the psalm is on the father and not on the sons.The sons of one's youth will be the ones to help the father in his old age. Thus, I believe that the interpretation I have given in my post better fits the context of the psalm.Thank you for visiting my blog.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>During his lifetime Absalom had taken a pillar and erected it in the King's Valley as a monument to himself, for he thought, "I have no son to carry on the memory of my name." –TNIVThe mention of 2 Samuel 18:18 is telling. Absalom in fact had three sons (14:27) and a daughter. Since Tamar lived in seclusion (13:20), one would think that from his statement in 18:18 that he had no grandchildren at all. But we know that his "daughter Maakah" produced a line of kings in Judah. I get into the identification of Maacah on my own biblioblog, but the point here is that for purposes of carrying on Absalom's name, she didn't count as one of his banim.Now, we can certainly understand that in our culture, because girls don't generally carry on their father's names. But what if that changes–will the Tom's NIV eventually change 'son' to 'child' here? Note that in Iceland, daughters as well as sons equally carry on a father's name for one generation. Here's how it works:F: father's first nameB: son's first nameG: daughter's first nameFull names are always B Fs-son or G Fs-dóttir. Yet the Icelandic Bible reads:"Ég á engan son til að halda uppi nafni mínu."At what point does it become nonsense to project our own cultural norms upon those of and to whom the Bible was actually written? Obviously we are going to differ on the answer, and that difference is going to affect whether we describe a new version as a translation or an explanation.
LikeLike
>"the point here is that for purposes of carrying on Absalom's name, she didn't count as one of his banim."But surely we know more or less the opposite from the case of Zelophehad's daughters, that when there was no son the inheritance was continued through daughters.
LikeLike
>White Man,Since the names of Absalom’s sons are never mentioned, most scholars are agreed that they probably died while they were young and that is the reason Absalom said that he had no son who would preserve his name in Israel.I agree with you that because of our Western desire to use inclusive language, we "project our own cultural norms upon those of and to whom the Bible was actually written."Thank you for visiting my blog.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>Peter,The case of Zelophehad's daughters is different: they could inherit the land that belonged to their father but they could not preserve their father's name in Israel. This could only be done through sons.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
>Peter,The case of Zelophehad's daughters is different: they could inherit the land that belonged to their father but they could not preserve their father's name in Israel. This could only be done through sons.Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
It’s pretty clear to me that banim means "children" here, both boys and girls.1. Certainly, "children" is one of the meanings of banim. The question is not whether banim can ever mean "children," but rather what it means here.2. The line is a classic example of parallelism, with the word banim parallel to pri habeten (literally, "fruit of the womb.") So in this context, banim are like any issue of the womb.3. Perhaps some translators are of the opinion that "sons" in English is also gender inclusive, the way the same translators use "men" for "people." If so, their translation "sons" may be in line with what I think the Hebrew word means.-Joel
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joel,
Thank you for your comment.I am sorry to say but I disagree with you. It is clear that in many passages in the Hebrew Bible banim means "children." However, it is clear to me that a textual context that refers to protection against enemies and legal defense at the city gate requires that the word be translated as sons and not as sons and daughters.
Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
Pingback: Assorted “Best of Summer 2018” Blog Posts | Veracity
Loved this explanation of this psalm..taking all contexts into consideration.
LikeLike
Kiti,
I am glad to know that you liked the post on Psalm 127. Thank you for visiting my blog.
Claude Mariottini
LikeLike
Hi Claude. I am a very simple person and have always wondered why this verse says “Sons”. But i have always excepted that is exactly what it means “sons”. It does not mean that girls are not a blessing too. But here it simply states a fact that at the time this was written boys were constdered a blessing for the very reason you explained and in some cultures still today this is still considered to be the same especially in some African cultures that I have visited. And to be honest girls and boys are equally a blessing but they have different roles. Probably the world today would be a happier place if women saw how important their roles are as homemakers and mothers and did not burn their bras while the men are the breadwinners. Each role so important. Thank you. You explained this verse wonderfully without demeaning girls. Both are blessings indeed. God Bless you.
LikeLike
Lynette,
Thank you for your nice words. You are correct, daughters are a blessing as mush as sons are. However, in our society today, people are trying to be politically correct and thus, they avoid the culture and the society in which the biblical writer lived. To them, sons were important; this does not mean that daughters were not important to them. My goal was to express what the writer of the psalm was trying to convey in his days.
Claude Mariottini
LikeLike