Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

James:

Both verses are in the context of Genesis 5:1–2, the title of the
section according to very ancient literary practice. Just as chapter
two had some things written out of sequence, so chapter three could
include an event that occurred later.

As for using "had" in verse 22 in translation, I think "has" makes
better sense in English. The context is a simple past in relation to
the speaking.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 7/3/06, JAMES CHRISTIAN READ <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk> wrote:
> HH:
> NRSV: Gen. 3:20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother
> of all living.
>
> JCR: Yes. Gen 3:20 is interesting and complicated
> because on reflection it doesn't seem as though Eve
> actually has any children yet at this moment in the
> prose so neither was nor had become seem to fit the
> context but rather 'would become' would seem to better
> fit the context.
>
> Even more worthy of not would be Gen 2:22
> כב ויאמר יהוה אלהים הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח 
> גם מעץ החיים ואכל וחי לעלם
>
> The context seems to clearly demand 'had become' in
> this case.
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew