Biblical Hebrew Forum

[C L <sigebryht AT yahoo.com>]

George,

Yes, I see your point about the use of the plural. For the sake of comparison, I might point out that the same could be true of "ustedes" in Spanish, or "Vy" in Russian. (Just as examples of the same phenomenon in other languages.)

Certainly, the occurrence of the plural address alone in this text doesn't NECESSITATE that the man be present. However, the text does have עמה

in 3:6, as you rightly note. Is it not possible to argue from context that עמה then influences our interpretation of the second-person masculine plural as a further attestation to the man's presence with his wife? In other words, I submit that the sum of all the features together rather strongly suggest that the man was standing right there - however, these features do not argue as strongly for such a conclusion if they are considered separately (though I doubt anyone here would argue for such a reading).

Perhaps that is the nuance needed here: The text suggests the man's presence rather strongly in the dialogue of 3:2-5, then we read עמה in 3:6: This seems to produce a dramatic turn. That is, after the suggestion that he is there by the plural forms, עמה makes an even more direct suggestion that he was right there.

But yes, this is an argument by weight of multiple pieces of evidence in the text. I admit that I find them fairly convincing.

Out of curiosity, Dr. Athas... Do you take a different view on this passage, or are you merely pointing out that other interpretations may be valid?

Respectfully,

Christopher Lovelace

---

From: George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>
To: C L <sigebryht AT yahoo.com>; "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 3:6, Adam was with Eve in the garden

Christopher,

While I agree with you that the man was there with the woman, I don't think your reasoning necessitates the conclusion. The snake could address the woman and still ask questions and make statements about both the woman and the man, even if the man were not there. You could, for example, talk to me about me and my wife without my wife being present. So the plural verbs doesn't necessitate the man being there. The use of the עמה is, I think, the strongest suggestion that the man was there, but I acknowledge that it's not the only conclusion.

GEORGE ATHAS

Dean of Research,

Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)

Sydney, Australia