Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Joel Stucki" <joel AT stucki.ws>]

On 7/4/06, kenneth greifer <greifer AT hotmail.com> wrote:
> Could Genesis 2:19 be about a second creation where G-d creates the animals
> again , but this time to let Adam pick a help-mate?

Yes or it could be a retelling of the story from a different tradition
or different perspective. Notice the change in the name of God.
Whatever significance you attach to this, something is different here
from the animal creation in Gen 1.

> Also, why does it say "...and He brought them to the man to see what He will
> call them...". I don't see the words "them" in the quote.
Yes it appears "them" is an addition to make it flow nicely in
English. The Hebrew verb is used intransitively here but the most
logical connection is with the animals in the preceding verse.

> I think it could have two other possible explanations. Maybe it says that
> G-d formed the creatures from the ground and then "...He came to the man to
> see what he will declare is his, and all that he will declare his, a living
> soul He (G-d) gave it." Maybe Adam was able to choose which animals would be
> domesticated .

Interesting. The Hebrew is YQR( LW. "He would call to him." It is
assumed the "him" is the animal but you have changed it to Adam.

As to the second part of this it is missing the direct object marker.
You have changed the traditional understanding of this sentence
significantly by making "living souls" as a direct object of the verb
"place" rather than the direct object of "called." You have changed
the noun "his name" to the verb "place" Intriguing. Can it be done
with a simple revoweling or do we need to amend the consonantal text?
"Hu' Shemo" is a pretty simple Hebrew phrase and not uncommon.
reconstructing it to read "he placed" instead of "that was his name"
seems a bit forced and unusual. The use of QR( plus lamed to signify
naming is well attested, particularly in Gen 1. So this reconstruction
has some difficulties.

> I know everyone will say I am wrong, but the quote in Hebrew does not seem
> to say "them", so I don't think the usual translation is perfect either.
> Kenneth Greifer

Fortunately, the matter of what is right and wrong is really not
dependant on a vote. I appreciate your input. It let me look at the
verse in a new way. The only thing that is ever wrong is not exploring
all the possibilities.

Joel Stucki