Speaker Label, labeled wrong in Genesis 3:3

In the ESV there are two speaker labels for Genesis 3:3, both of which have God as the one speaking. The first is in reference to when God said not eat of the tree (correct). The second label attributes the phrase, "...neither shall you touch it...", to God. (wrong) Ironic?! I believe Eve is the one who is speaking at this point, which would make sense considering the second speaker label.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JT (alabama24)

Matt - Thanks for pointing this out. After looking at it, I think you are right that it is a mistake. Hopefully Logos will catch this thread.

Matt Ediger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436311#Comment_436311

alabama24,

Is this something I can highlight within L5 and report as a typo? Or does that only work for the text itself?

Thanks

Doc B

The second label attributes the phrase, "...neither shall you touch it...", to God.

There's some girl named Eve in the tagging department with a chip on her shoulder.

(humor)

Seriously, this begs a good question: How does Logos generally handle direct quotations? And when a prophet utters a, 'thus saith the Lord', is the prophet speaking, or is God speaking?

I haven't looked at these things much...I'll have to go look a few up.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436320#Comment_436320

Is this something I can highlight within L5 and report as a typo? Or does that only work for the text itself?

I just tried it, and it appears that you can't. Logos will see this thread… sooner or later. [:)]

There's some girl named Eve in the tagging department with a chip on her shoulder.

Funny doc. [:D]

Sean Boisen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436311#Comment_436311

Looks to me like we have a spurious speaker label in the middle of this speech, and the scope of what God said (as reported by Eve) ought to be

You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.

We'll get this fixed, and you should see that in a future update.

Sean Boisen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436349#Comment_436349

Is this something I can highlight within L5 and report as a typo? Or does that only work for the text itself?

I just tried it, and it appears that you can't. Logos will see this thread… sooner or later.

...

We plan to add an option on the panel menu to report problems like this more directly. In the meantime, you can either post in the forum (putting "Bug:" and a clear description of the problem in the title always helps), or email data@logos.com.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436414#Comment_436414

Looks to me like we have a spurious speaker label in the middle of this speech, and the scope of what God said (as reported by Eve) ought to be

You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.

We'll get this fixed, and you should see that in a future update.

Sean, it's accepted that the first part of the quote ("You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden...lest you die") is Eve reporting God's speech. The phrase "neither shall you touch it" doesn't occur in God's instructions to Adam, and many believe that this is Eve's embellishment, and the beginning of her slip into mistrusting God's motives leading to her to sin.

Given how you handle ambiguity in other situations, your solution above seems to be consistent with that approach. But you're going to get disagreement about not noting the ambiguity, and in this case leaving it out leads the reader to prefer one solution over the other by leaving out the question of who's really speaking here.

This makes me wonder whether you want to think about including ambiguity in more of your speaker labels, and this is a good example of why you may not want to do that.

Sean Boisen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436419#Comment_436419

Thanks Richard: i was moving too quickly and missed this subtlety.

Unfortunately, i'm not sure what kind of ambiguity our annotation mechanism lets us record. We might be able to note speaker ambiguity (A or . I'm much less sure we can express scope ambiguity (this speech spans 18 words vs 26 words). We have a different annotation process for speaker labels than other data (like people/places/things, or referents, or senses, etc.)

Ultimately, of course, all such decisions have a level of subjectivity, since the text itself doesn't record these details. The best we can hope for is recording a consensus among interpreters (and sometimes that's elusive).

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436425#Comment_436425

The best we can hope for is recording a consensus among interpreters (and sometimes that's elusive).

I understand the difficulty - well at least in determining what's necessary to include, and what is preferable, but not necessary - and that there will be a wide variation in deciding what is necessary and what is optional. There's also the difficulty of deciding which interpreters to lean on. Ultimately there's a lot of subjective judgments going on. The down side is that not all readers are careful enough to recognize the subjectivity of some of these decisions, and may take them at face value without any critical thinking.

The reason this one is significant, is that the entire creation - fall story of Gen 1-3 appears to be carefully constructed to teach us who we are, Who God is, and how sin came into the world. The attention to detail in the story of the fall, includes so many subtle details, that it seems constructed to teach us about the nature of temptation, the weakness and vulnerability of the human heart, and give us a blue-print upon which every kind of sin is built. (It's a marvelous story, skillfully and purposefully written.) To gloss over any aspect of it (including this subtle embellishment by Eve - which I believe is how we are to take this) robs the story of one of it's jewels. In this case, the temptation to add to God's commands (which is taught explicitly later in the Pentateuch), which itself is both a sin and a path to more sin.

I wrestled with a lot of these themes just about a year ago, and so they are somewhat fresh in my mind - but not fresh enough to recall the specific interpreters I found most helpful. However, among the interpreters I read, there was wide consensus that Eve very probably embellished God's command here. I personally think that a careful reading of the text, taking into account the careful telling of the story, requires this interpretation, though I understand the counter-arguments and caveats as well.

I guess my point is that marking the text is interpretation, and in some cases, will tend to encourage less careful readers to miss these kinds of things. So, if there is a way to include at least the point that there is ambiguity, a less careful reader may investigate for him/herself - which is what I hope is the goal of Logos Bible Software for all users. You don't want to decide everything for us, you want us to dig deeper. Right?

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436425#Comment_436425

Unfortunately, i'm not sure what kind of ambiguity our annotation mechanism lets us record. We might be able to note speaker ambiguity (A or . I'm much less sure we can express scope ambiguity (this speech spans 18 words vs 26 words).

Well, but that's what it is: we don't know whether God said it or Eve invented it. I don't see this as a case of speech is 18 vs 26 words (like in John 3) versus who is the speaker, since here it's God (reported) or Eve. I personally tend to believe that Eve made this part up, but the point would be to show that either interpretation is not just factual representation, but interpretation of the text.

Maybe you should have different-color megaphones to show spurious/disputed speaker attribution and perhaps wrong attribution when someone lied about what another person said.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436419#Comment_436419

Sean, it's accepted that the first part of the quote ("You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden...lest you die") is Eve reporting God's speech. The phrase "neither shall you touch it" doesn't occur in God's instructions to Adam, and many believe that this is Eve's embellishment, and the beginning of her slip into mistrusting God's motives leading to her to sin.

I've heard the "Eve's embellishment/sin starts here" on a number of occasions, both from the pulpit and in writings. Frankly, I find the idea both shocking and pathetic. This is one of the most common cases of eisegesis in Biblical interpretation. There is zero chance that she is embellishing here--ZERO. If she were, then she sinned without being tempted or deceived. In other words, this interpretation (rather, imaginative infusion) renders the serpent superfluous and extraneous to the narrative.

At the point where she gives her reply, Hhawwaah's response is nothing more than a reply to a question. Whatever the imagined intentions of the serpent, to an utterly innocent person (such as she) the question can only be an innocent query which contains no language that extends beyond apparent curiosity. To assert that her response is laden with doubt, mistrust, embellishment, or fiction is to insist that she sinned (for this embellishment is certainly "bearing false witness") prior to any questioning of YHWH's motives or any seed of doubt is introduced by the serpent. That is not just absurd...it is obscene.

Nothing else needs to be said, but it is worth noting two things. First, there is John's comment that Yeishuu`a spoke many things not recorded. That ought to be beyond obvious...but it is nonetheless frequently overlooked. The principle behind that fact extends throughout history. We have every reason to suppose that YHWH spent more time in conversation with 'Aadhaam and Hhawwaah than is recorded.

Also, there are examples such as that found in regard to 'Aharohn's sin of fashioning the golden calf. In the Exodus account, he seems to get off pretty much scot-free. But in the Deuteronomy account, Mohsheh makes clear that his brother's life was spared only because of his intercession on 'Aharohn's behalf. So, is Mohsheh guilty of embellishing? Is he bearing false witness? Lying?

No? Neither was Hhawwaah.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436473#Comment_436473

Of course Adam was the intermediary; he may be embellished it as typical of this half of the human race. Joking, guys. Really.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436483#Comment_436483

This is a perfect example of why we need to be able to put notes on everything. Someday, Logos may provide us with a prebuilt note file of their tough editorial decisions.

Annie O'Connor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436473#Comment_436473

The image above shows the Hebrew for Gen 3:3. The purple underline shows the text attributed to God, which is split up by the text in the green box (God said). I looked through some English translations, all of which use syntax which keeps the words attributed to God together, and so I eliminated the extra speaker label.

The red boxes indicate the verbs in the section "You shall not eat from it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die." Both verbs are in the second person, so it appears that Eve is attributing both to God (whether she did so deceptively or not.) Since Eve attributes both to God, both portions were included in the reported speech as God.

This location is an example of nested speech; The entire speech is attributed to Eve, starting in verse 2 and continuing through the portions she attributes to God. In addition, the portions she attributes to God we likewise attribute to God. When the second speaker label appears, it is not an indication that Eve has stopped speaking; "and you shall not touch it, lest you die" is attributed to Eve and to God in our database.

Matt Ediger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436473#Comment_436473

David Paul,

Just so I understand then, Eve or more accurately "the woman" sinned at the moment she touched (v.6) the fruit since there is zero possibility the phrase "...neither shall you touch it..." is an embellishment.

How does that affect the logic and implications of your second paragraph? That is, what changed categorically for "the woman" between verse 3 and verse 6.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436493#Comment_436493

Good job, Annie

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436495#Comment_436495

If you don't mind, can you be even more specific in your question.

What she says is fully in keeping with the Biblical concept of "flee sin". It is rather silly to assume, given the entire Book's attitude toward sin, that they couldn't eat the fruit, but using it for hair and skincare products, building a treehouse and tire swing, and using the leaves for potpourri were all just fine. But the point isn't simply the nearness...it is the ingesting that is in focus. Nearness is undesirable and to be avoided (because of the consequences) but the "becoming one" with the sin object (through ingestion as food) is what is most needful to avoid. As always, it is the principle.

Matt Ediger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436493#Comment_436493

Annie,

Thanks for the picture... I am a visual learner and that helps! Hehe I am no Hebrew Scholar either so this question may be totally ridiculous... could the use of the second person plural here (You shall...) be referring to both Adam and the woman in this context? i.e. "you all (both) shall not eat..."

Kevin Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436500#Comment_436500

If you don't mind, can you be even more specific in your question.

What she says is fully in keeping with the Biblical concept of "flee sin". It is rather silly to assume, given the entire Book's attitude toward sin, that they couldn't eat the fruit, but using it for hair and skincare products, building a treehouse and tire swing, and using the leaves for potpourri were all just fine. But the point isn't simply the nearness...it is the ingesting that is in focus. Nearness is undesirable and to be avoided (because of the consequences) but the "becoming one" with the sin object (through ingestion as food) is what is most needful to avoid. As always, it is the principle.

David, I think there is a very specific set of instructions given by God to Adam in Gen. 2:16-17. Don't EAT the fruit is in play here. This is repeated by all parties including God in chapter 3:

Gen 3:11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”

Gen 3:12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.”

Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

Gen 3:17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

The only time touching the fruit is mentioned is in the dialogue between "the woman" and the serpent, which we know is based on deception, and a bit of ignorance on the part of "the woman". The original instructions match the recap of events and also the basis for God's summary judgement based on His clarification of the charges.

To say that there is a zero chance based on the total reading of the text is a bit over-reaching in my opinion. The single prohibition in the Garden pre-fall was do not eat the fruit of "that tree".

Kevin Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436513#Comment_436513

Thanks Annie for chiming in on this. I can see the logic Logos used to apply both tags to God here based on the verbs being in the 2nd person. However this highlights one of the cautions of these tags for the user. It seems that this feature will mainly be used by users without much experience in using the language tools where intermediate and advanced users are already looking at grammar and syntax to work these issues out. The issues remain for the user that is in the first boat as they are not as prone to be able to work around these issues.

I like MJ's suggestion that notes be able to be applied to help circumvent this, else there will be regular discussions over these vocative tags and why they are applied the way they are.

At the end of the day perhaps the positive here is that it will compel folks to dig a bit deeper into the text and perhaps give a reason to sharpen exegetical skills as a regular part of study. This would be a great thing.

Matt Ediger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436500#Comment_436500

David Paul,

If what you said is true, there is zero possibility that this is an embellishment, then, according to you, God did say, "Do not touch the fruit." (assuming the pronoun 'it' is referring to the fruit of the tree as opposed to the tree itself...) Thus, in verse 6, when the woman touched the fruit she sinned because she directly violated a command of God.

Perhaps, you can help me by defining what you mean by, "an utterly innocent person (such as she) the question can only be innocent query..." I am having trouble, according to your explanation, as to seeing what changed for the woman and when it changed for her. In other words, are you saying the woman was utterly innocent, in that she didn't have the capacity to sin? Or at the very least, the capacity to be deceived?

If you answer is yes, when did this come about and how does that square with 1 Timothy 2:14?

Thanks for your time.

Matt Ediger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436515#Comment_436515

Kevin,

I agree... it would be nice to have some sort of system stave off endless discussions. Plus those notes might highlight further area's of study...

Haha! I didn't realize this morning when I posted that it would be such a big deal. It has been fun to interact with other Logos users and examine Scripture to see if these things are so!

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436473#Comment_436473

I've heard the "Eve's embellishment/sin starts here" on a number of occasions, both from the pulpit and in writings. Frankly, I find the idea both shocking and pathetic. This is one of the most common cases of eisegesis in Biblical interpretation. There is zero chance that she is embellishing here--ZERO. If she were, then she sinned without being tempted or deceived. In other words, this interpretation (rather, imaginative infusion) renders the serpent superfluous and extraneous to the narrative.

Sorry, David. My interpretation is based on the text, not on a predetermined decision about what is the actual sin (as your interpretation seems to be), and that embellishment is itself sin, rather than merely one step on the path to sin. As you present your counter-argument, it seems to me to be equally liable to the charge of eisegesis. The fact is, the phrase "do not touch it" does not occur in the text prior to the woman saying it. The simplest conclusion, based on the literary nature of the story, the care and economy of words with which it is told, and the likely didactic purpose of these chapters in the context of the deliverance of the law of Moses, is that this phrase stands out on purpose and we are supposed to notice it. And we do.

I really don't want to debate the exegetical decision here, or to debate what is/isn't good exegesis. These forums aren't the place for that (in the above presentation, my motive was to request inclusion of the ambiguity of interpretation, not establish one position as definitive). But I do object to your caricature of this interpretation as "imaginative infusion," and "shocking and pathetic" eisegesis. That's both unwarranted and ungracious.

I do not want to discuss this particular text further on these forums. I made my point with Sean, et al., that was my only goal.

Matt Ediger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436524#Comment_436524

Richard,

I would also be interested in labels that indicate ambiguity. I suppose that means a lot more work for those guys with their nose buried in the Book! It would also mean a lot of labels! Thanks for you response to my post earlier this morning.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436524#Comment_436524

Well as usual, you guys are 'adding to the text'. There's no hint she's embellishing, ignorant etc. And since God didn't talk to her and Adam did, and she certainly sounds confident prior to the talking-snake's participation, that pretty much points (another) strong finger at the son of man (I'm reading a book on aramaic).

Matt Ediger

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436503#Comment_436503

Annie,

Forget my question! I see what you are saying now. Thanks again for the pictorial!

Dewayne Davis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436513#Comment_436513

Since the entire Word is from God himself, and is His Word of Salvation to man written through men by the Holy Spirit, then obviously the entire volume of the Word should be Red Letter and all speaker labels should be all three of the Godhead. [;)]

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436519#Comment_436519

David Paul, If what you said is true, there is zero possibility that this is an embellishment, then, according to you, God did say, "Do not touch the fruit." (assuming the pronoun 'it' is referring to the fruit of the tree as opposed to the tree itself...) Thus, in verse 6, when the woman touched the fruit she sinned because she directly violated a command of God. Perhaps, you can help me by defining what you mean by, "an utterly innocent person (such as she) the question can only be innocent query..." I am having trouble, according to your explanation, as to seeing what changed for the woman and when it changed for her. In other words, are you saying the woman was utterly innocent, in that she didn't have the capacity to sin? Or at the very least, the capacity to be deceived? If you answer is yes, when did this come about and how does that square with 1 Timothy 2:14? Thanks for your time.

Matt...I will try to wrangle an answer for you, though I am still not exactly sure what you are wanting/asking.

Yes, when she touched the fruit, it was sin.

Assuming that we accept that the woman and the man were innocent prior to the serpent's intrusion, we must acknowledge that the man and woman had zero "street-smarts" and zero experience with sin. The story pretty much asserts that without the serpent's intrusion, they would have continued without transgression. If sin is introduced by the serpent (and sin is described incessantly as a communicable disease in Scripture), then until the infection takes place, the woman was innocent and clean--far more so than even a pre-toddler. Again, a toddler has far more street-smarts than the woman did. As such, she would have had zero capacity to identify a "confidence game", and would be conceptually and experientially unfamiliar with the term "lie". The universal Christian notion that she should have realized what was happening to her is a bogus and hateful mischaracterization. I'm not saying she had no capacity to sin--I'm saying she had no capacity to avoid being fooled and deceived.

Capacity to sin? Yes...as evidenced by her sin. Would she have sinned without the intrusion of the serpent? The entire point of the story is that the serpent caused something that wouldn't have occurred otherwise. Obviously, the questions we feel impelled to ask that begin, "what if...?" are pointless, because the plan was carried out as planned. YHWH could have kept the serpent out of the garden but didn't because what took place in Genesis 3 was the plan.

The typical, faulty Christian interpretation--the woman embellished her reply--requires her to sin before she was ever deceived. In such a scenario the serpent merely shows up to view the fall, he isn't the instigator of it. The reason this concept is nonsense is straightforward: the deception isn't in his initial question, it is in his reply to the woman's response. Any failure on the woman's part prior to his second comment is not his fault--it is hers...her own self-initiated sin. Though the reasons are intricate, the events of Yohm Hakippuriym assert unequivocally that such as scenario can't be true. The serpent did deceive the woman...she didn't choose sin--she was infected by it.

DAL

In the ESV there are two speaker labels for Genesis 3:3, both of which have God as the one speaking. The first is in reference to when God said not eat of the tree (correct). The second label attributes the phrase, "...neither shall you touch it...", to God. (wrong) Ironic?! I believe Eve is the one who is speaking at this point, which would make sense considering the second speaker label.

I believe is correct the way it is. Eve is just quoting God, that's all. You could argue that Eve is the speaker on both instances, but then again, remember she's just quoting what God said.

Blessings!

DAL

Dewayne Davis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436617#Comment_436617

Or perhaps, the fact that she stated "not even touch" was a hint that man was already headed in the direction of "choosing knowledge" over "choosing Life". The sin wasn't so much the act, but the choice, and the disconnect that followed. We all tend toward "figuring this out" and "making sure we are right". But the point of this whole passage is that mankind chose knowledge over life. Let's not do that here.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/437080#Comment_437080

But the point of this whole passage is that mankind chose knowledge over life. Let's not do that here.

An utterly false dichotomy. They are the same thing.

Douglas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/436484#Comment_436484

... Someday, Logos may provide us with a prebuilt note file of their tough editorial decisions.

[Y]