Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 2:6

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
  • To: "George F Somsel" <gfsomsel AT juno.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 2:6
  • Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:47:50 +0300

Does anyone know why 'ed in Genesis 2:6 is translated "mist"? This
rendering has nothing to do with the root meaning, and both here and
in Job "to turn" is more likely translation, assuming a derivation
from aleph-holam-dalet.

Genesis 2:5 ends with, "Man was not there to work the ground."
Genesis 2:6, "He [man] would turn, he would rise out of the earth,
would water the whole face of the ground." The man was formed from
earth to water it.
Genesis 2:7, "Lord God begot the man, dust of the earth he [the man]
breathed into his nostrils, essence of life; the man was for a
living soul."

Translation "the mist" doesn't make much sense: if we assume that
the earth was waterless, then where the mist came from? Besides,
Genesis 1:7 explicitly mentions that the earth included much water.

Vadim Cherny
_______________________________________________

Just where do you propose to find "man" in Gen 2.6? I note that you
supply it, by there is no word )DM in the text. Your proposal if far
more insupportable in that you simply ignore )"D. As a matter of fact,
)"D in 2.6 is, according to HALOT represented in Akkadian by edu
"inundation." What is therefore pictured is a natural irrigation rather
than one dependent upon the efforts of man. It would seem to make
perfectly good sense in the context.

george

"Man" (2:5) is the *only* antecedent to "he" implied in the 3rd person verb at the beginning of 2:6.
I don't know how the pronunciation and meaning of "edu" was established in Akkadian, but such direct borrowing, ignoring the root system of Hebrew, is unusual.
2:7 also seems to indicate that it was the man who breathed the dust, not God who breathed it into the man. A possible reason to mention that detail is that the land was dusty, not irrigated yet.

Vadim Cherny




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page