On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Allen Roy wrote:
> To be sure the Hebrew language has fewer verb tenses that English, however
> the following note by W. Shea explains why it is allowable for the past
> perfect tense of English to apply to the texts (both 19 and 8).
> "The Hebrew verbal system differs from that of English by having only
> two tenses, the imperfect and the perfect, and the word "tense" in the
> temporal sense does not fit them very well. The imperfect verb yiser in
> Genesis 2:19 is preceded by the conjunctional letter waw which in Hebrew has
> the standard grammatical effect of converting it into a perfect. In the
> simplest cases Hebrew perfects are translated with the English past tense;
> so this verb commonly has been translated "formed." The spectrum of English
> translations for perfect verbs in Hebrew is broader than just the simple
> past, however, and in this verse an English past perfect fits the context
> best.
> One reason for preferring a past perfect translation here is the
> parenthetical nature of this verse. The preceding verse quotes God as
> stating that He would make ('e'esê) a helper (singular) for Adam. This
> intent was fulfilled in verse 22 which states that God built (yiben) woman
> from the rib which He had taken (note the past perfect translation of this
> Hebrew perfect) from man. That God did not intend one of the animals to be
> Adam's helper is evident from the singular versus plural contrast here and
> probably also from the different verbs that were juxtaposed in verses 18 and
> 19. The reference to the animals in verse 19 is parenthetical, therefore,
> and the conjunction with which this verse begins should be translated in a
> disjunctive manner to bring out this point. This fits the past perfect
> translation proposed for the verb which follows it. Thus the opening of
> Genesis 2:19 is best translated, "Now Yahweh God had formed every beast...."
> The preferable past perfect translation of this verb refers back to the
> creation of the beasts and birds on the 6th and 5th days of the preceding
> narrative respectively (note that both are mentioned here in an inverted
> order), and the verb at the beginning of Genesis 2:19 does not need to imply
> they were created again after man."
> William H. Shea
> Associate Professor of Old Testament
> Andrews University
> >From http://www.grisda.org/origins/06059.htm#Anderson
>
> Allen
>
>
Allen,
What Shea indicates is that the tense chosen for the English translation
has to be determined from the context. For Gen. 2:19 he cites the need for
consistency with Genesis 1. He also says that the first part of the verse
is parenthetical, which seems to be the traditional view, and I don't
dispute that although it is not so obvious that everyone is going to
accept it.
You also claimed that he had made the same case for the past perfect in
Gen. 2:8, but I don't see any mention of 2:8 in your quote. If we apply
the same principle of determining the tense from the context, I think a
good case can be made for the planting of the Garden right after or very
close to the time of the formation of Adam.
Verse 5 gives the absence of humans as being one of the reasons for the
desolate condition of the region where the events of Chapter 2 are taking
place. This seems to suggest that the Lord planned to wait to plant the
Garden until there was someone around to look after it. (See vs. 15 also.)
This does not have to change the order of creation given in Gen. 1 since
it is normal to assume that what is planted was something that already
existed somewhere. Furthermore it would be unnecessary to cite the reasons
given in vs. 5 for the desolation of that region if those plants were not
already in existence somewhere else.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 21 2002 - 03:37:01 EST