Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> I see your point about two accounts of creation, but of course there is no 
> inconsistency. But read what verse 7 actually says very literally, I 
> follow the Hebrew word order here:
>
> A and formed YHWH God the man(obj) dust from the ground
> B and (he/it) blew in his nostrils breath of life
> C and became the man to soul living

Differentiation of the verse into these clauses is arbitrary.
Why read izr as "formed?" It is "created," if izr at all. I see it rather as 
nzr, which is at any rate related. Thus, "designated" or "brought forward" 
(to irrigate). I don't recall any example of using izr in the sense of "took 
something and formed something different," except in what seems a dubious 
case of Is44:12. The sense of izr is rather entirely mental, inapplicable to 
making a man from dust.
Why would the man be called "dust from the ground?"
Why read "nostrils" instead of the more common "face?"
"Blew in his nostrils" is not a normal sense of the verb, which is commonly 
associated with opposing, with negative, even like "reject." "Blew in his 
face" better conforms with the general meaning of the verb.
How established is the sense "breath?"
What could it possibly mean, "became the man to living soul?"
Why translate the verb as "became?" Isn't it rather "was" or "existed?"

> Clause A must mean that God formed humanity - and so must be a second 
> creation story

That bothers me. And that is why I try to read differently: "Lord God 
brought forward (nzr) the man."

> Clause B, according to the regular rules,

Peter, the regular wayiqtol rule you mean, is applicable only if we assume 
the verse to be an unbroken phrase, something which I argue against, and for 
what we have no evidence.

> must have God as the subject, or just possibly the breath of life. In 
> principle "his nostrils" could be God's own, but more probably refers to 
> the man. There is no way that "dust" could be the subject, and, since dust 
> does not have nostrils, no other part that dust could play in this clause.

Lord God brought forward the man. Dust of the ground blew into his face. The 
man became a breath of life to a living soul.
That is, God sent the man to irrigate. The man breathed the dust, and indeed 
irrigated. By doing that, the man brought a breath of life to all living 
creatures.

I don't argue 100% for that translation. Exegetically, I love it. 
Semantically, it seems no worse that the traditional one, also with some 
problems.

Vadim Cherny