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 <[email protected]>
>To: C L <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
><[email protected]>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
