Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT nis.za>]

Dan Wagner wrote:

> 
> I'm curious as to why you agree with the common but anomalous translations
> of the 'eTH before YHWH in this verse which appear to assume a "with" of
> agency, something not otherwise attested in BH. It seems almost to be a
> semantic anglicism (though i can't imagine that for the translators) since
> our English "with" has that latitude, but Hebrew does not. In BH, is not
> 'eTH always one of association (or such as that), but never agency ["by the
> help of," "from," "by" etc.]? All translations i've consulted, English and
> otherwise, seem to struggle with it but never escape the problem. I'm not
> impressed with Waltke & O'Conner's support for that meaning of 'eTH here.
> 
> I'm interested in other opinions, especially any which take 'eTH as the sign
> of the direct accusative here. Is some sort of double accusative possible?
> Are there any parallel examples to a construction like this (regardless of
> how one interprets it) in the MT?

I think Skinner (ICC commentary) had the correct solution,
which is in recognizing the meaning of the verb - the verb
qanithi is to be understood as "create" (not "acquire") and
the preposition 'eth thus expresses co-action (somewhat
similarly Cassuto).

>> qanithi 'ish 'et Yhwh  =  "I have created a man with the Lord" (childbirth 
>> being the creative process).

For 'et expressing co-action see Exod 18:22 (wenase'u ittak
- they shall bear [the burden] with you), and for the
similar `im as co-action BDB lists 1 Sam 14:45, Dan 11:39.

The other question is why Eve would call Cain 'ish - two
points, one, can refer back to her own creation out of Adam
- there woman came out of man, now a "man" comes out of a
woman.  2nd, 'ish is just generic for male, like geber in
Job 3:3 (referring to Job's birth) and zera` 'anashim in 1
Sam 1:11 (Hannah asking for a male child).

Luther popularized taking 'et as the accusative marker for a
messianic interpretation (he said something like "if it
pleases no one else it is sufficient that it pleases me"!),
to go along with his (erroeous) singular interpretation of
the woman's seed in Gen 3:15.

Regards,

John