Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] One scholar's' opinion

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] One scholar's' opinion
  • Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 07:24:29 -0500

JAMES CHRISTIAN READ 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.


HH: You mean Gen 3:22, and you mean "has become." But this verse is not looking back at what is strictly past. It views the past action as part of the present reality (perfect tense), so it is not exactly like some of the other verses we've discussed.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page