Matthew_Green

As an adherent of the Documentary Hypothesis, I believe that Genesis one and two contradict each other on the order of creative events. Genesis one has the creation of animals before the creation of man, while Genesis two reverses it and places the creation of man before that of animals. I have seen evangelical apologists try and get around this by arguing that the Hebrew word for "made" in Genesis 2:19 should be translated in the pluperfect and understood to say "Now the Lord God had made..." The problem I have with this is that it seems to me that the Hebrew word for "made" in this verse is "incomplete" as far as its mood goes. I did a study on Genesis chapter one and two and I noticed that when the Hebrew word for made is meant to be understood in the pluperfect sense, its mood is complete. In Genesis 2: 8, the Hebrew word for "made" is in the complete mood which makes perfect sense given that it's best understood translated in the pluperfect: "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed" The Hebrew word for "form"/"made" in this verse is in a complete mood because it's referring to an action that happened in the past (verse 7).

I was wondering if the Hebrew word for "made" or "formed" in verse 19 would have to be in the complete mood in order for the quibbles of apologists like Gleason Archer and others to be sound. Does anyone know for sure?

Matthew

spin

For casual readers who might have difficulty with this post,

Ancient Hebrew has no present or past tenses. There is no verb form with the same idea as "went" or "killed". The major verb distinction is between the complete action and the incomplete action, which might be seen in the difference between

1a) "I have made" and
1b) "I am making"

-- though this is only a rough separation, for the distinction is not that simple. Languages tend to develop secondary uses for its forms. Think of the English

2a) "He made a bomb." and
2b) "If he made a bomb, where is the evidence?"

The first "made" is definite and the reader knows that the bomb existed. The second "made" sheds double on the existence of the bomb, because it is in a conditional sentence. Other languages have different verb forms in these two cases, just as English has different verb forms for a given Hebrew verb form.

Matthew talks about the "complete mood", which my analogy gave 1a above.

He also mentions the "pluperfect" use of a verb. "Pluperfect" indicates that an action happens before another in the past.

3a) and there he put man who he had formed. (Gen 2:8)

God puts man into the garden. Before that act he formed man, so "had formed" in #3a is pluperfect. The Hebrew might be seen as saying something of the simplicity:

3b) and there he is putting man who he has formed.

If these verb forms are in a narrative, we would normally translate them in the past tense -- though we sometimes use the present in a story: "A man goes into a bar...".

The interesting thing about 2:19 is that it reads, using an attempt at a literal verb rendering:

4) And out of the ground god is forming every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and (he) is causing (them) to go to the man to see what he is calling them...

As you can see this isn't a verb nice looking English sentence. However, it gives the idea that it was an ongoing process of creating the animals and as they were created they went to Adam, who gave them names as they came. I think that should give my understanding of Gen 2:19 for Matthew's query. Adam was obviously created before the animals and the verb forms give no reason to think that the animals were all created before the start of the naming process.


spin

Matthew_Green

Spin,

I very much appreciate your reply. I thought of posting this at TheAtheistNetwork but I didn't think anyone there would know a damn thing about Hebrew. I guessed that the Secular Web ought to have a few people with at least a minimal knowledge of Hebrew. I am a complete novice and so I appreciate the insights of wiser heads and people whose knowledge easily outstrips my own. It seems though as if my hunch was confirmed. I still plan to study Hebrew, mind you- I just had this very thought-provoking question in my mind that I wanted to get out. I just couldn't wait to find out the answer to it!

Cheers!

Matthew