Some folks are currently involved in the latest thread discussing various translations here:
https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/kjv-onlyism.16123/, but I'll just get this out of the way here before making any further comments: I highly prefer the Concordant-project Scriptures. The Concordant project has been going on for over 100 years and is an ongoing effort to drill deeper and deeper into not only etymology and hermeneutics but with a commitment to (a) making primary whatever oldest extant pieces of Scripture are available, and (b) when at all possible translating any given Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word from those closest-to-original manuscripts with the same English word every time they appear. The background commitment for the project is to bypass all the bias and purposeful mistranslation that has been fallaciously-injected into it since Scripture was originally written. When I quote either the Concordant Version of the Old Testament [CVOT] or the Concordant Literal New Testament [CLNT], you'll notice that some words are bolded while others aren't; the
bolded ones are the straight translation, and the unbolded ones are words only added to make the syntax flow sound like the manner in which people speak in the present day, as opposed to the more cave-man-like cadence of thousands of years ago (what we consider sophistication they probably would have considered a waste of time -- kind of like reading my posts seem to most people, right?).
So: I Samuel 1:6: "
Moreover her rival would vex her to
vexation in order to dishearten her since Yahweh had tightly closed up
her womb." [CVOT]
This is צָֽרָתָהּ֙ surrounded by a whole lot of vexing and vexation, so I start off wondering if your interpretation isn't wishful thinking in search of a further positive justification for polygyny or further refutation of arguments that Hannah and Penninah exemplify why polygyny is bad. I do get both why people erroneously correlate the behavior in question with polygyny (when it's just another example of female nature and/or weak male leadership) and why you would want to refute that, but
I believe you've missed something here:
צָֽרָתָהּ֙ (transliterated as either 'tsarah' or, less convincingly, 'saratah' [a tangential curiosity is the close etymology of 'tsarah' to 'sarah;' the generally-accepted translation of the proper name 'Sarah' is 'Princess,' but this is most likely explainable due to Sarah's association with Abraham after YHWH renamed her in the wake of producing Isaac; 'sarai' now holds connotations of barrenness, but at the time of Abraham it was the feminine equivalent of a combative man, and I'd assert that the Sarai/Hagar sisterwifehood is yet another example, not of the ills of polygyny, but of the ills of female vexation, but I digress]) isn't an example of a unique word that is translated one way in I Samuel 1:6 but otherwise elsewhere -- it's an example of a word that is so unique that it itself only appears in that form
once in Scripture. צָֽרָתָהּ֙ is the partial basis for a number of other words, as well as being related etymologically to numerous additional words, but they coalesce around meanings centering on 'distress' leaning heavily toward 'vexation,' which definitionally implies distress being purposefully incited by another. [This can all be discovered by starting at Strong's 6869.]
Then there's the full context, keeping in mind that Elkanah was in violation of Exodus 21:10: "
He had two wives; the
name of the one was
Hannah, and the
name of the second was
Peninnah. And Peninnah came to
have children; but Hannah had no children. From days to
days this man went
up from his city to worship and to sacrifice to Yahweh of hosts at Shiloh. There Eli and the
two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were
priests for Yahweh. When the day came that Elkanah sacrificed, then he would give to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and her daughters their
assigned share
s. But to Hannah he would
give one double-sized assigned share
, for it was
Hannah that
he loved; yet Yahweh had closed her womb. Moreover her rival would vex her to
vexation in order to
dishearten her since Yahweh had tightly closed up
her womb. This happened year by year. As often as she went up
to the
house of Yahweh, the other would
vex her in
this way
, so
that she lamented and would
not eat. Why are you not eating? And why does
your heart feel
bad? Am
not I better for you than ten sons?" [I Samuel 1:2-8 CVOT]
Clearly, I Samuel comes right out of the gate with an exposition of why Exodus 21:10 is His Imperative; this is a lesson for a
husband of two wives. I challenge any of us to assert that we can't imagine falling into the snare that Elkanah entrapped himself in: favoring one wife over the other, looking like a simp in the process ("Oh, honey, isn't it clear that my passion is primarily for you?; isn't that what you've always wanted?; isn't being so favored in my eyes that I would
violate YHWH's commandment to treat my wives equally more precious to you than being a mother?"), and in the process failing to address the taunting Hannah received from Penninah if not outright inspiring it through his
ongoing failure to correct the situation and redirect the behavior of the wife he was disrespecting.
We also have to remember that this story was written by the eventual son of the aggrieved Hannah, but that only emphasizes the other, more lasting, lesson of the narrative: YHWH rewarded Hannah for transforming her vexation, distress and anger into committing herself to dedicating her son to Elohim if He would remove the barrenness of her womb. The punishment of barrenness was visited upon both Elkanah and Hannah, but it was Hannah and her humility that Yah rewarded, which is why we rarely hear the name Elkanah and probably can't remember the last time we heard someone bragging about being a descendant of Peninnah.
It's impossible to remove barrenness from the cultural context of both the place of women and the dynamics
among women at those times. Producing heirs was the highest calling for a woman, and I would declare it a denial of the foundational makeup of female nature to fail to recognize that it would almost be a given that a man should expect that his prolific wife would vex his other wife who was more loved, was given a double portion and who was also barren. Would we have expected Peninnah to vex Hannah for being more loved or for getting more cash, provisions or quarters? Or do we just believe because these were biblical figures that all women were just sitting around being universally wonderful, loving, cooperative and kind?
