Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

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