The Order of Gen. Two

[A Beautiful Truth]

I wanted to run something past you all here that Robyn Banks brought up in Cosmogony. This comes from the thread with the same name as this in which I brought up the point that we have a chronological order in Gen. two. Gen. two has animals being created after man from the dust because man was alone. Some argued this but Robyn had this to say:

But there is one important grammatical point from the Hebrew that I don't think anyone here has noted, and which is relevant to the interpretation of the text.

In 2.18, Yhwh God announces that he "will make a helper" which is to be Adam's counterpart. The form of the word used for 'helper' is particularly instructive. For instead of using the usual feminine term for helper, (ZRH ('zrh), the author has deliberately chosen a neutral form of the word, (ZR ('zr).

If the announcement to make a helper in 2.18 is only fulfilled in 2.21-22 in the creation of woman (as the argument goes), then you have the strange situation of the author deliberately choosing a neutral term for "helper" instead of the normal feminine term. Yet, the normal feminine term is precisely what would have been applicable to Eve!!

So, this grammatical point should also be considered, along with the context of the passage as a whole. It is quite relevant to the interpretation of the passage, and weighs further in favour of understanding the creation of animals to follow the announcement by God that he will create a helper (ZR ('zr).

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

Do you agree with Robyn's assessment?

~Charleen

[lee_merrill]

Hi Charleen,

I'm not a language expert, but it does seem that Robyn kind of answered the question, if the masculine "helper" can refer to men or women, then it could reasonably refer to Eve, it's not impossible. Especially since all the animals had just been reviewed as candidates! That makes it even probable, it gives a reason that the generic form of "helper" was chosen.

Thus "man was alone" refers to him being without this helper, I would say, thus I would expect this does not indicate that there were no other creatures then...

Blessings,
Lee

[kofh2u]

I wanted to run something past you all here that Robyn Banks brought up in Cosmogony. This comes from the thread with the same name as this in which I brought up the point that we have a chronological order in Gen. two. Gen. two has animals being created after man from the dust because man was alone. Some argued this but Robyn had this to say:



Do you agree with Robyn's assessment?

~Charleen


No way.

Robyn's point is instructive, but his litle itty-bitty readjustment of t
e existing archaic, mythological stories does not help... we still need a helper...
...to help make such a sensible and rational take on the entire chapter. We need an undeniably acceptable idea that covers every symbolized mystery. We need total overview, a hypothesis or premise that then works, like charm concerning ribs, trees, rivers, Edens, and unashamed nakedness.

If the best we can do is the non-sense invention of supposed meaning and moralizing about the Word of God which has emerged from Christian's ideas on this, noting thst we are only two chapters deep into His book, then I say we need the promised helper who is to come and, thank God, we have the Holy Comforter now.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I wanted to verify if Robyn had his Hebrew right. There is already a discussion going on in Cosmogony about the implications of the ideas put forth here. I posted this here exactly for the purpose of getting the Hebrew verified.

~Charleen

[Robyn Banks]

Do you agree with Robyn's assessment?

Claus Westermann agrees:

"The usual word for help is (ZRH; here the neutral form (ZR (masc.) is used deliberately."

- Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, tr. J. J. Scullion (London: SPCK, 1984), p. 227.

I couldn't find any other comment on this. But, then again, Claus is The Master.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[kofh2u]

Claus Westermann agrees:

"The usual word for help is (ZRH; here the neutral form (ZR (masc.) is used deliberately."

- Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, tr. J. J. Scullion (London: SPCK, 1984), p. 227.

I couldn't find any other comment on this. But, then again, Claus is The Master.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks


I agree.

IMO, Adam was almost totally subconscious before the fall, living rather instinctually and functioning predominantly in the mode of his Libido. This is the sensory mode common to most mammals. The helper was his Animus, the Mother Principle found in all men.

By helper is implied a state of mind available to him. He functioned dominantly in his Libido and secondarily in his intuitive Animus mentality.
The Animus is neutral in gender since it is the masculine counterpart of a feminie attribute.

Gen. 2:22 And (with) the rib, (this psychic facility, the Animus), which the LORD God, (Father Nature), had taken from man, made he a woman, (he created the Anima dominant in her, a source of human Intuition), and brought her unto the man.

[lee_merrill]

Claus Westermann agrees:

"The usual word for help is (ZRH; here the neutral form (ZR (masc.) is used deliberately."

- Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, tr. J. J. Scullion (London: SPCK, 1984), p. 227.

Well, the form listed in Strong's definition of this word is the second, not the first, so I would think this would indicate that the second form is actually the normal one. And Strong's definition of this form is generic, not specifically masculine, it is just "a helper," presumably including all kinds of helpers, and both genders.

Blessings,
Lee

[Robyn Banks]

Well, the form listed in Strong's definition of this word is the second, not the first, so I would think this would indicate that the second form is actually the normal one.
This "indicates" nothing of the sort. The ordinary form is עזרה ('zrh). It is feminine.



And Strong's definition of this form is generic, not specifically masculine, it is just "a helper," presumably including all kinds of helpers, and both genders.
This is what I said. The normal feminine word עזרה ('zrh) has been replaced by the masculine word עזר ('zr), which is neutral. If this had been done because the author intended it to apply to Eve alone, it would be quite difficult to understand his reasons. And, as I said, this should merely corroborate the contextual argument.

Robyn Banks

[kofh2u]

Hi Charleen,

I'm not a language expert, but it does seem that Robyn kind of answered the question, if the masculine "helper" can refer to men or women, then it could reasonably refer to Eve, it's not impossible. Especially since all the animals had just been reviewed as candidates! That makes it even probable, it gives a reason that the generic form of "helper" was chosen.

Thus "man was alone" refers to him being without this helper, I would say, thus I would expect this does not indicate that there were no other creatures then...

Blessings,
Lee

Cows, oxen, horses, .... not THAT kind of "helper?" Not domesticated helpers.

Then do you see "helper" as implying "sex partner?"

Is it inferred by neutral choice of the noun that Adam considered gayness, but we discover that with Eve, he "went straight?"

Or, is this a clue that we maybe wrong in the assumption that chapter 1 and 2 is a "myth-like," but true report of how the world came to be as we know it?

Could Chapter 2 be a metaphor concerning Gen 1:26?

Is the "helper" to help man in the assigned work:

..." and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

And, did God give man the one necessary tool to do His bidding:

"Then God, (the Ultimate Universal Power) said, 'Let us make man, (mentally), in (analogy to the Natural Workings of) our image, (as reflected in his comprehension), in our like-ness (in regard to his perception of the reality external to his mind),'"...

The TE interpretation of the seven Geological Eras enumerated in chpt1 maintains a contextural harmony in chpt2 which is easily read as pertaining to the growth, development, and maturing of the most powerful creation of God, the human mind to which He can even speak.

See my take starting to explain hard to get out of mythological complication?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Cows, oxen, horses, .... not THAT kind of "helper?" Not domesticated helpers.

Then do you see "helper" as implying "sex partner?"

Is it inferred by neutral choice of the noun that Adam considered gayness, but we discover that with Eve, he "went straight?"



That's just weird.

[Bib Lit Major]

This "indicates" nothing of the sort. The ordinary form is עזרה ('zrh). It is feminine.

Are you basing your identification of עזרה as the ordinary form simply off of word count? There are 26 occurences of this form and 16 of the masculine, which is difficult to say which is the "ordinary" form. The usage of the author in question is much more relevant rather than choosing a supposed "ordinary" term that occurs only ten more times than the other in a span of books that, at least, ranges several hundred years. The fact that the author of Genesis never uses עזרה, and only uses the masculine form one more time (and in this same context) is not helpful for determining usage. I wouldn't be so sure about this kind of argumentation. In overall gist, you might be right in your interpretation, but to base it of this seems rather dubious.

Also, as far as grammar goes, if I remember correctly, many times the feminine form of a word denotes the class as a whole (thus a nebulous idea of "help"), whereas the masculine form denotes a specific member or a specific instance, thus, a specific helper, as opposed to a class of helpers. If GP or someone else knowledgeable in Hebrew grammar notices I have that backwards, or it is outdated information, let me know, but I am pretty sure that is what I read in Gesenius.

For instance, עזרה is used Ps 27:9 with a 2nd person masculine verb, whose subject is YHWH (cf. Ps 63:7[8]). In Ps 40:17[18] it is used again of YHWH in connection with a 2nd person masculine pronoun. Does one think it likely that in Ps 60:13 the one praying wants a female helper to help the armies conquer? Thus, making a connection between the gender of words and the sex of the objects in view seems fallacious.

[lee_merrill]

For instance, עזרה is used Ps 27:9 with a 2nd person masculine verb, whose subject is YHWH (cf. Ps 63:7[8]). In Ps 40:17[18] it is used again of YHWH in connection with a 2nd person masculine pronoun. Does one think it likely that in Ps 60:13 the one praying wants a female helper to help the armies conquer? Thus, making a connection between the gender of words and the sex of the objects in view seems fallacious.
I did a quick search, and found either form can reference a masculine person:

Masculine form:

Psalm 10:14 … you have been the helper of the fatherless.

Psalm 30:10 Hear, O Lord, and be merciful to me! O Lord, be my helper!

Psalm 54:4 Behold, God is my helper; The Lord is the sustainer of my soul.

Feminine form:

Psalm 22:19 But you, O Lord, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid!

Psalm 27:9 Do not hide your face from me, do not turn your servant away in anger; you have been my helper.

Jeremiah 37:7 Pharaoh's army that came to help you is about to return to Egypt.

So it either form can refer to male or female, it seems, thus this is not likely to resolve the question as to whether God was or was not referencing Eve specifically when he said "helper."

Blessings,
Lee

[porter]

I think the more interesting part of the phrase from Genesis 2:18 is the second word of ezer kenegdo.

The first word is understood to be helper.
That is a good translation into English.

The second word kenegdo (kaph-nun-gimel-daleth-vav) is an unusual word found only twice in the Bible, both times in the second chapter of Genesis.

The KJV translates "help meet for him".
That is a rather archaic expression.

The NRSV says "helper as a partner".
That is more modern, but I am not really sure that kenegdo has all the implications that "partner" suggests.

The NASB says "helper suitable for him".
A footnote says literally "helper corresponding to him".

Young's literal translation says "helper as his counterpart".
This is the translation I like best.

Genesis 2:18 has been used by theologians to show the subordinate position of women to men.
Therefore I think an accurate translation is necessary.

The NRSV word "partner" suggests equality.
The KJV translation "help meet" and the NASB translation "helper suitable for him" suggest subordination.
Young's translation "counterpart" is more neutral but suggests some form of balance.

Porter

[Menachem]

I wanted to run something past you all here that Robyn Banks brought up in Cosmogony. This comes from the thread with the same name as this in which I brought up the point that we have a chronological order in Gen. two. Gen. two has animals being created after man from the dust because man was alone. Some argued this but Robyn had this to say:



But there is one important grammatical point from the Hebrew that I don't think anyone here has noted, and which is relevant to the interpretation of the text.

In 2.18, Yhwh God announces that he "will make a helper" which is to be Adam's counterpart. The form of the word used for 'helper' is particularly instructive. For instead of using the usual feminine term for helper, עזרה ('zrh), the author has deliberately chosen a neutral form of the word, עזר ('zr).

If the announcement to make a helper in 2.18 is only fulfilled in 2.21-22 in the creation of woman (as the argument goes), then you have the strange situation of the author deliberately choosing a neutral term for "helper" instead of the normal feminine term. Yet, the normal feminine term is precisely what would have been applicable to Eve!!

So, this grammatical point should also be considered, along with the context of the passage as a whole. It is quite relevant to the interpretation of the passage, and weighs further in favour of understanding the creation of animals to follow the announcement by God that he will create a helper עזר ('zr).

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks


Do you agree with Robyn's assessment?

~Charleen


The hebrew word עזר also has the meaning of "wife"

The passage should be read as:

Genesis 2:18 "Hashem G-d said ' It is not good that man be alone; I will make him a wife( עזר ) corresponding to him..." and that would be fulfilled in 2.21-22

so her(Robyn's) assessment is in error...

[Augustine2004]

The hebrew word עזר also has the meaning of "wife"

The passage should be read as:

Genesis 2:18 "Hashem G-d said ' It is not good that man be alone; I will make him a wife( עזר ) corresponding to him..." and that would be fulfilled in 2.21-22

so her(Robyn's) assessment is in error...I looked up the word in an online lexicon

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/OldTestamentHebrew/heb.cgi?search=05828&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find

As you can see, the meaning of 'wife' is not there.

Moreover, the context seems wrong. Normally one does not say 'a wife suitable for him' unless there is a particular reason to stress the suitability of the wife.

[Menachem]

I looked up the word in an online lexicon

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/OldTestamentHebrew/heb.cgi?search=05828&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find

As you can see, the meaning of 'wife' is not there.

Moreover, the context seems wrong. Normally one does not say 'a wife suitable for him' unless there is a particular reason to stress the suitability of the wife.


LOL...that is because this lexicon only looks up one definition for the Hebrew word.....Try finding a good Hebrew dictionary(Ben Yehuda's will do) and in the Hebrew section the word has the meaning of "wife" in english as well as helper....A search engine is no substitute for learning Hebrew....

"The context seems wrong"....I dont think so!...read it again....there is no stress on the suitability part only on the making of a suitable partner which would be his wife as it is made true in verses 21-22.

A christian stressing context...Man I have never heard that before!

[Augustine2004]

I was thinking that 'helper suitable for him' could be translated 'wife for him.' I guess that's not a bad translation anyway.

[Drashi]

The reason that the noun is masculine is because it refers to an inferred מישהו (someone), which is always masculine.

That's the primary point. In a related point, women can be referred to in the masculine.

There are a number of instances that I can cite in modern Hebrew (and Biblical Hebrew follows these same subset of rules), where I can include my wife in a phrase and use a masculine reference. (Such as "Shoshanah is here, the children have a driver.)"

In short, don't sweat over it.