Speaker Label, labeled wrong in Genesis 3:3

Page 1 of 2 (33 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 32 Replies | 4 Followers

Posts 18
Matt Ediger | Forum Activity | Posted: Tue, Dec 4 2012 6:37 AM

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.

 

Posts 28579
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 6:46 AM

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.

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 18
Matt Ediger | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 7:04 AM

alabama24,

 

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

 

Thanks

Posts 2938
Doc B | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 7:07 AM

Matt Ediger:
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.

My thanks to the various MVPs. Without them Logos would have died early. They were the only real help available.

Faithlife Corp. owes the MVPs free resources for life.

Posts 28579
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 7:50 AM

Matt Ediger:
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. Smile

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

Funny doc. Big Smile

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 841
LogosEmployee
Sean Boisen | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 9:26 AM

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.

 

Posts 841
LogosEmployee
Sean Boisen | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 9:28 AM

alabama24:

Matt Ediger:
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. Smile

...

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.

 

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 9:36 AM

Sean Boisen:

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.

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 841
LogosEmployee
Sean Boisen | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 9:51 AM

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 B). 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).

 

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 10:42 AM

Sean Boisen:
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?

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 10912
Forum MVP
NB.Mick | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 11:14 AM

Sean Boisen:
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 B). 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.

 

Running Logos 8 latest beta version on Win 10

Posts 4965
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 12:05 PM

Richard DeRuiter:

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.

Posts 11213
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 12:33 PM

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

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 29704
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 12:40 PM

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.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 15
Annie O'Connor | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 12:57 PM

 

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.

Posts 18
Matt Ediger | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 12:58 PM

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.  

Posts 29704
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 1:08 PM

Good job, Annie

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 4965
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 1:12 PM

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.

Posts 18
Matt Ediger | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 1:18 PM
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..."
Posts 188
Kevin Taylor | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 4 2012 1:42 PM

David Paul:

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".

 

 

 

Logos 5, Windows & Android perfect together....

Page 1 of 2 (33 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS