Why Genesis 2:19 Should Not Be Translated as a Pluperfect

The literalistic reading of Genesis 1 and 2 gives rise to contradictions between the text, as seen in the last post. Various attempts to harmonize these two accounts literalistically have been offered that fail the test of lexicography, grammar, syntax, and context. 

Today, I want to discuss an attempt to interpret Genesis 2:19 in such a way as to present this text as harmonizing with Genesis 1.

In Genesis 2:19, the NIV and ESV (along with some conservative scholars) translate the opening verb as a pluperfect (i.e., where the verb is describing an action that predates the timing of the flow of the narrative). Hence, that reading takes the verb וַיִּצֶר֩ to mean "He had previously formed." The verse then would read, "Now YHWH God had formed from the ground every animal of the field and every bird of the sky. And He brought them to the man to see what he would call each one."

This gives the impression that God had previously made these animals, referencing back to Genesis 1, and that He is merely taking the animals that He had previously made in Genesis 1 and bringing them to Adam. This is not consistent with the grammar and Hebrew syntax for a few reasons.

1. As one can see in the translation, he pluperfect idea is accompanied by a disjunctive term, "now." This is because the flow of the narrative would be to take v. 18 as prior to the creation of the animals and also give the reason for their creation. Hence, the translators wish to supply a disjunctive marker like "now" to turn v. 19 into a parenthetical phrase that merely gives background ("now, YHWH God had previously made from the ground all of the animals of the field"). 

The problem is that this waw is not disjunctive. Disjunctives in Hebrew are most often indicated by a disruption in the usual word order. Hebrew almost uniformly constructs its prose with sentences of the V+S+O  word order. These tend to be the conjunctive sentences, not disjunctive. Hence, this is not a parenthetical statement but flows with the narrative, which means that this action is occuring after the event of God's statement in v. 18. The disjunctive can be seen in vv. 5 and 10, which actually are parenthetical statements that merely provides background for the narrative and are not a part of its sequential order. Another example of this is found in Genesis 1:2. 

2. The fact that this is temporally subsequent to the statement in v. 18 and the flow of the narrative that precedes it is confirmed by the fact that the verb וַיִּצֶר֩ is a wayyiqtol, otherwise known as a waw consecutive. It is given this latter name because it tends to continue the narrative story in prose. In other words, it is the next thing that happens after the previous event described by the wayyiqtol, such as we have in v. 18 with וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ "And He said." Hence, v. 19 is not disjunctive but follows the narrative sequence of events from God forming Adam from the ground in v. 7, planting plants after that in v. 9, taking the man and putting him in the garden in v. 15, commanding him not to eat from the wrong fruit in v. 16, seeing that it was not good for him to be an individual without a mate and deciding to make him a helper in v. 18, forming animals and birds as possible candidates for that role in v. 19, causing him to fall asleep and taking a chunk from his side in v. 21, and crafting a woman for him as a helper and bringing her to him in v. 22.

3. This pattern makes more sense here since God's declaring that Adam's singleness is "not good," a phrase that plays on the pattern of Genesis 1. Along with this pattern is God declaring what is to be created and then it is created. Hence, God states He will create a helper. God creates helpers but they are not fit for Adam, so He makes a final one that is "according to his side," i.e., human like he is. There is no interruption of parenthetical statements in the Genesis 1 narrative between God's decree and the creation of what God decrees. Hence, I would argue there is none here as well and the creation of the animals is part of the process that the man needs to see in the creation of the woman as his uniquely made helper. 

4. Hebrew, and clearly the author of Genesis himself, does not convey the pluperfect idea like this. Instead, if the author meant to communicate a pluperfect idea and make the creation of the animals at an earlier time than that of Adam's creation, he would have said like this: "And God brought all the animals of the field which He had made from the ground to Adam. In other words, the main clause of the narrative flow would appear first and then the pluperfect statement. The author does do this in a couple places just in these opening narratives. For instance, in Genesis 1:31, "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." Notice, the wayyiqtol is the first verb that continues the flow of the narrative, "And God saw everything." The pluperfect that describes things that were previously made begins with the Hebrew relative clausal indicator אֲשֶׁ֣ר "which" and then gives us the pluperfect that lo and behold is formed with a perfect, not an imperfect or preterite. Imagine that. The pluperfect is actually formed out of the perfect as is normative in most languages. It is not formed out of the wayyiqtol anywhere in this narrative.

Again in 2:2-3, the construction appears three times, each one in the same format: wayyiqtol as the main clause in the narrative flow first, then אֲשֶׁ֥ר followed by a perfect. 

"And on the seventh day God finished (wayyiqtol) his work that (אֲשֶׁ֥ר plus perfect) he had done (עָשָֽׂה), and he rested (wayyiqtol) on the seventh day from all his work that (אֲשֶׁ֥ר plus perfect) he had done (עָשָֽׂה). So God blessed (wayyiqtol) the seventh day and made (wayyiqtol) it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that (אֲשֶׁ֥ר plus perfect) he had created (בָּרָ֥א) to make."

Conclusion: The text is not saying that God made the plants, birds, and animals before He made the man and woman. It is saying that God made them after the man was created. This, of course, flies in the face of the literalistic reading of the two texts and begs us to question our presuppositions and traditional interpretations of these texts.