{"id":4355,"date":"2016-07-30T13:34:51","date_gmt":"2016-07-30T19:34:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/?p=4355"},"modified":"2023-07-02T13:30:02","modified_gmt":"2023-07-02T19:30:02","slug":"genesis-215-part-eight","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/?p=4355","title":{"rendered":"Genesis 2:15 \u2014 Part Eight"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

I turned next to a friend of mine who wishes to be a Semitic language authority. She is currently studying etching on pottery shards from ancient Assyria.<\/h3>\n

I sent her my original lesson with this request: “Don’t tell me what the commentaries and translations say \u2014 I don’t really care. What I want to know is whether the original Hebrew allows this interpretation without twisting things around too much.”<\/h3>\n

Here\u2019s her reply: (Much of this is over my head, but I get the general gist and I think you will too.)<\/h3>\n

On \u201cput\u201d meaning \u201crest\u201d:<\/h3>\n

The verbal form you\u2019re referring to here is actually ?????? (wayyanihayhu<\/em>) which is a composite form consisting of a temporal marker, a prefix (which indicates that the subject is masculine, singular, 3rd person), the three-letter root (which carries the meaning), and a pronominal suffix at the end (which indicates that the object of the verb is masculine, singular, 3rd person).\u00a0 In other words, the English \u201c(He) put him\u201d comes from one lexical unit in Hebrew. The form yanach<\/em> is, therefore, inaccurate, because that\u2019s not the form used here and when one refers to Hebrew \u201cverbs\u201d in general, one should always use the naked form which is nothing but an unvocalized (no vowels) three-letter root, in this case nwh<\/em>. That\u2019s the dictionary form. If you add any vowels to make it pronounceable, you also add a meaning to it. It may sound complicated, but it\u2019s not. <\/span><\/h3>\n

As far as the meaning, you\u2019re right on. The form of nwh<\/em> in Gen. 2:15 is in the Hiphil<\/em> stem which is causative. The general meaning of the root nwh<\/em> is \u201cto rest,\u201d \u201cto repose,\u201d or \u201cto be quiet.\u201d In the causative sense, it means X causes Y to rest. I don\u2019t have any problem with this part at all, other than the yanach<\/em> thing.<\/span><\/h3>\n

So far, so good. She supports the first part of the RWO interpretation and disagrees with the theologian from Part Six<\/a>.<\/h3>\n

On \u201cdress\u201d meaning \u201cworship\u201d:<\/h3>\n

Inaccurate. See above. Also, the second letter can be b or v depending on whether or not it\u2019s doubled. In this case, it\u2019s not, so it should be a v. Granted, the letter beth is often transliterated as b in English. But Hebrew speakers will pronounce the beth in this verbal form like a v. Your best bet is to say that the Hebrew verb used here is abd without suggested pronunciation. The actual form used here is ????? (le-av-dah).<\/span><\/h3>\n

Your interpretation [PWO] would have been legitimate if the object suffix hadn\u2019t been 3rd person, feminine, singular. I actually like your interpretation a lot, and I don\u2019t think it\u2019s wrong to think of rest\/serve\/obey as the pre-Fall command at all. It\u2019s just that this verse cannot be used to back up that idea. I tried to help you, but there doesn\u2019t seem to be any way you can get this interpretation out of this verse. You know I don\u2019t use commentaries. I don\u2019t use Word Study aids either. I approached this from a purely philological stand point and tried to go as far back as I could \u2013 even beyond the vocalized texts back to the consonantal texts. I even looked at translations which were done before the fifth century AD when the Hebrew texts became vocalized to see whether there might have been some variants of the consonantal texts which back up my hypothesis. This is because the Masoretes \u2013 the guys who superimposed vowels on the consonantal texts \u2013 are known to have made quite a few mistakes. When the consonantal texts can be vocalized more than one way, the Masoretes were actually the people who interpreted the texts for all of us by assigning vowels which they thought made the most sense to the unvocalized texts. In other words, when the consonantal texts allow for multiple possibilities, they were the ones choosing one possibility for us and declaring that reading authoritative (as is \u201cthus saith the Lord,\u201d done deal \u2013 no further questions). I don\u2019t necessarily think they had the right to do that, but I\u2019m not going to go into that. Nonetheless, as evident in ancient translations done prior to the Masoretic era, not all Hebrew readers read the consonantal texts the same way as the Masoretes. In the case of what appears to be irreconcilable differences between the Masoretic texts and other versions (that are based on the consonantal texts), philologists\/exegetes (at least the responsible ones) always bypass the Masoretic vocalization and go back all the way to the consonantal texts.) I did all that and found nothing that would help you.<\/span><\/h3>\n

Your interpretation would only make sense if you could establish that the object of serve and obey is God, not the garden. That\u2019s the ONLY way you can justify the meanings \u201cserve\u201d [actually, I said \u201cworship\u201d] and \u201cobey\u201d which you have chosen out of the whole range of things these two verbs can mean. <\/span><\/h3>\n

However, no matter from how many angles I look at this, I just don\u2019t see anything in the linguistic realm that allows for that possibility. You see, the object in Hebrew is built-in; it\u2019s attached right onto the verbs. When Hebrew speakers look at these verbs, there\u2019s no confusion whatsoever that the object of these two verbs (the \u201crest\u201d verb doesn\u2019t apply here as it is intransitive, requiring no objects) is the garden, not God. \u201cGarden\u201d in Hebrew is feminine in gender and serves as the antecedent of the object suffixes which are attached to these verbs (also feminine singular). If the object suffixes on these verbs were masculine, singular, then, no doubt, the antecedent would definitely be God, and you would have yourself a very, very solid case.\u00a0 If the word \u201cgarden\u201d were masculine, then one would have two ways of understanding this verse due to the ambiguity revolving the antecedent, i.e., \u201ctill it\u201d vs. \u201cserve [worship] Him\u201d and \u201cguard it\u201d vs. \u201cobey Him.\u201d (Both interpretations would be grammatically possible, because a 3rd person, masculine lexical unit in Hebrew can be translated \u201che\/him\u201d or \u201cit\u201d in English depending on what it is.) Now, as for which reading one decides to go with, that depends upon one\u2019s judgment. Syntactically, you can make a case for either view.<\/span><\/h3>\n

However, as the verse stands, whether in the vocalized texts or the consonantal texts, there just isn\u2019t any possibility that the object of the two verbs would point to God. This has made the rendering of the verbs as \u201cserve\u201d [worship] as opposed to \u201ctill\/work\u201d and \u201cobey\u201d as opposed to \u201cguard\u201d implausible.\u00a0 True, the meaning range of both abd<\/em> and shmr<\/em> covers \u201cserve\u201d and \u201cobey,\u201d but when you see that the built-in object is inanimate (garden), \u201cserve\u201d [worship] and \u201cobey\u201d have no relevance. You cannot serve [worship] and obey an object. A general rule: a verb means what it means according to how it\u2019s used and the context in which it\u2019s used; it doesn\u2019t mean everything it can mean.<\/span><\/h3>\n

That seemed to be that. The RWO interpretation won\u2019t work. I may have to admit that I’m wrong or at least that the issue can’t be definitively resolved.<\/h3>\n

But I still want to pursue it a bit further.<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. \n

    I want to track down the professor from whom I first heard this interpretation and see what he has to say about all this. He\u2019s a good friend of a good friend of mine, so I think I\u2019ll be able to do this sometime.<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  2. \n

    It still makes no sense to me that God put man in a perfect place for the purpose of keeping it nice.<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  3. \n

    Resting in, worshipping and obeying God is our purpose now, after the fall. I have to believe it was our purpose before the fall too.<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n
  4. \n

    The professor, Krell<\/a> and my friend (here) all agree that \u201cput\u201d means \u201crest.\u201d If that\u2019s the case, the rest of the verse doesn\u2019t make sense if interpreted as \u201cdress\u201d and \u201ckeep.\u201d<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    That\u2019s where it stands at present. If I discover more, I\u2019ll post it. As for the original lesson that started this all \u2014 I rewrote it. I made the exact same point \u2014 that man\u2019s purpose is to rest in God and worship and obey Him. I didn\u2019t use Genesis 2:15 as a proof text, but relied on other Scripture. Everybody liked it just fine.<\/h3>\n

    The rest of this post consists of a couple questions that my friend wants me to ask the professor when I see him. They don\u2019t add anything new to the discussion, so you don\u2019t need to read them. I\u2019m including them here so I\u2019ll have everything together in one place.<\/h3>\n

    Based on the Masoretic text, the pronominal suffixes on both abd<\/em> and smr<\/em> are clearly feminine singular which point to gan<\/em> as their antecedent. Even if one was to override the masoretic vocalization, the consonantal text would still support the feminine\/singular reading. One could argue that, according to the consonantal text, the waw<\/em> immediately following the two infinitives could have originally been part of the pronominal suffixes attached to the two verbs (thus making them masculine\/singular), but that is highly unlikely given the fact that the first waw<\/em> would be needed to link the two infinitival phrases at the end of 2:15 and the other waw<\/em> would be needed to form a waw<\/em>-consecutive form at the beginning of 2:16<\/span><\/a>. To make God the object of abd<\/em> and smr<\/em> (which is the only way to justify translating these verbs as serve and obey respectively as opposed to till and guard as required by the context), one has to argue very convincingly that the consonantal text is corrupt or that the Masoretes, for whatever reason, intentionally altered the consonantal text and vocalized the emended text in such a way that the object of these two inifinitives is the garden (or a feminine\/singular entity), not God. This position would be considered strong only if the hypothesized reading is supported by pre-Masoretic versions such as the transliteration in the second column of the Hexapla or the translation of the LXX (which probably wouldn’t lend much help since “garden” in Greek is masculine, thus adding to the ambiguity).<\/span><\/h3>\n

    Unless a strong case is made for God as the object of the two verbs, the context demands that the verbs be understood according to their object, garden. This has significantly narrowed down the semantic range of these two verbs. Undoubtedly, “serve” and “obey” are part of the semantic range of abd<\/em> and smar<\/em>, but can one “serve” and “obey” a garden? Elsewhere in the OT where abd<\/em> and smar<\/em> are used to convey the meanings “serve” and “obey,” they’re never used in conjunction with an object like a garden. Therefore, again, the only way to justify translating the two verbs as “serve” and “obey” is to prove that the originally intended object is God, not the garden. Can this be done without violating the Hebrew syntax or clearly demonstrating that this is indeed a case of textual corruption and religiously-motivated vocalization? And if so, on what bases can this be done?<\/span><\/h3>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    I turned next to a friend of mine who wishes to be a Semitic language authority. She is currently studying etching on pottery shards from ancient Assyria. I sent her my original lesson with this request: “Don’t tell me what … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4355","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-genesis"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4355","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4355"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4355\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8050,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4355\/revisions\/8050"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4355"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4355"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4355"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}