Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/176

 commonly explained by the analogy of other passages of J, where the name is avoided in conversation with heathen (39$9$ etc.), or when the contrast between the divine and the human is reflected upon (32$29$). But J's usage in such cases is not uniform, and it is doubtful what is the true explanation here (see p. 53).—2, 3. The woman's first experience of falsehood leads to an eager repudiation of the serpent's intentional calumny, in which she emphasises the generosity of the divine rule, but unconsciously intensifies the stringency of the prohibition by adding the words: nor shall ye touch it] A Jewish legend says that the serpent took advantage of this innocent and immaterial variation by forcing her to touch the fruit, and then arguing that as death had not followed the touch, so it would not follow the eating (Ber. R., Ra.). Equally futile inferences have been drawn by modern comm., and the surmise that the clause is redactional (Bu. Urg. 241) is hypercritical.—the tree midst] See p. 66 f.—4. Ye shall assuredly not die] On the syntax, v.i. The serpent thus advances to an open challenge of the divine veracity, and thence to the imputation of an unworthy motive for the command, viz. a jealous fear on God's part lest they should become His equals.—*

(or less),' 'not to mention,' etc., as in 1 Sa. 14$30$, 1 Ki. 8$27$, Pr. 11$31$ etc. In some cases the simple has this sense, and the  (= 'when,' 'if') introduces the following clause (1 Sa. 23$3$, 2 Sa. 4$10f.$ etc.). It would be easy to retain this sense in v.$1$ ('How much more when God has said,' etc.), if we might assume with many comm. that some previous conversation had taken place; but that is an unwarrantable assumption. The rendering on which Dri. (BDB) bases the ordinary meaning of — Tis indeed that'''—requires but a slight interrogative inflexion of the voice to yield the shade of meaning given above: 'So it is the case that God,' etc.? The Vns. all express a question: G, Aq. , Σ. [Greek: ], V cur, S, T$O$ (= 'really'?).—  ] = 'not of any': G-K. § 152 b.—2. ] G, S .—3. ] Not 'concerning the tree.' There is an anakolouthon at, and the emphatically placed is resumed by .—] [E] + .—] On the ending, see G-K. §§ 47 m, 72 u.—4. ] On the unusual order, see Dav. § 86 (b); G-K. § 113 v. It is often explained as a negation of the threat in 2$17$, adopting the same form of words; but the phrase had not been used by the woman, and the exact words are not repeated. More probably its effect is to concentrate the emphasis on the neg. part, rather than on