JBL 132, no.

4 (2013): 729–747

Blaming Eve Alone: Translation,

Omission, and Implications of
‫ עמה‬in Genesis 3:6b

julie faith parker

jparker19@fordham.edu
Duane Library, Fordham University, Bronx, NY 10458

Interpreters tend to blame only Eve for succumbing to temptation in the garden,
even though Adam is present in Gen 3:1–6 and shares responsibility for disobe­
dience. This article reveals how English translations of Gen 3:6b (“and she gave
also to her husband with her and he ate”) frequently isolate the woman by failing
to translate hm( (“with her”) in this verse. The Hebrew word hm( is undisputed
in the MT. Ancient textual witnesses, except the Vulgate, consistently include
some version of this phrase. Grammatical reference works agree on the function
and importance of hm(. Especially in English, hm( provides critical information,
yet many translations of Gen 3:6 (including the RSV and NJPS) do not say that
Eve’s husband is “with her.” This discussion looks at the biblical text, Hebrew
grammars, commentaries, ancient sources, fifty English translations of Gen 3:6b,
and translation committee notes to explore the history, implications, and motiva­
tions of translators’ decisions regarding hm(. While some translators consider
hm( insignificant in Gen 3:6, this article argues that neglecting to translate this
word has important ramifications. Bibles that do not mention that Adam was
“with her” facilitate interpretations that excuse the man and condemn the woman.

Hast thou not wondered, Adam, at my stay?

Thee I have missed, and thought it long, deprived
Thy presence, agony of love till now
Not felt, nor shall be twice, for never more
Mean I to try, what rash untried I sought,
The pain of absence from thy sight. But strange
Hath been the cause, and wonderful to hear:
This tree is not as we are told, a tree
Of danger tasted, nor to evil unknown
Opening the way, but of divine effect
To open eyes, and make them gods who taste;
And hath been tasted such …
—John Milton, Paradise Lost, IX: 856–867

729
730 Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 (2013)

Eve is stunningly powerful and deeply maligned. Even people who do not read
the Bible are well aware of the woman’s pivotal role in bringing the man—and by
extension the entire human race—to sin.1 Popular culture depicts Eve as Adam’s
“temptress,” although scholars dispute whether Genesis 3 actually conveys “the fall”
at all.2 While this academic discourse remains largely beyond the purview of most
people who know the story of Adam and Eve, biblical translations do not.
This article discusses the critical role of translation in heightening the blame
on the woman. Specifically, I focus on the prepositional phrase hm( (“with her”)
in Gen 3:6b (‫ותתן גם־לאישה עמה ויאכל‬, “and she gave also to her husband with her
and he ate”) and its frequent absence in English translations. This small Hebrew

I would like to thank the two JBL reviewers, Leslie Thayer Piper, and my former teacher,
Dr. Phyllis Trible, for reading and commenting on drafts of this article. Years ago, Professor Trible
mentioned in a lecture that “with her” was in the Hebrew of Gen 3:6 but did not appear in the
RSV. That comment was the motivation for this research. I am also grateful to Joan Duffy of Special
Collections in the Yale Divinity School Library for her help accessing the Standard Bible Committee
translation notes.
1 The designations “Adam” and “Eve” function explicitly as proper names only toward the

end of the second creation story. I use these names interchangeably with “the man” and “the
woman” because this is how the characters are commonly known.
2 Carol L. Meyers observes, “The assumption that Genesis 3 is about the origins of sin

dominates nearly all treatments of primaeval history” (“Gender Roles and Genesis 3.16 Revisited,”
in The Feminist Companion to Genesis [ed. Athalya Brenner; FCB 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1993], 127). Feminist scholarship challenges interpretations against Eve with pioneering
contributions from Jean M. Higgins (“The Myth of Eve: The Temptress,” JAAR 44 [1976]: 639–47),
Phyllis Trible (God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality [OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978], 72–143),
Phyllis Bird (“Images of Women in the Old Testament,” in The Bible and Liberation: Political and
Social Hermeneutics [ed. Norman K. Gottwald; Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983], 275–79), and
Carol L. Meyers (Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context [New York: Oxford Univer­
sity Press, 1988], 72 –94). Significant feminist studies are many; some especially notable works
include Mieke Bal, “Sexuality, Sin, and Sorrow: The Emergence of Female Character,” in eadem,
Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories (Indiana Studies in Biblical Lit­
erature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 104–30; Danna Nolan Fewell and David M.
Gunn, Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject of the Bible’s First Story (Nashville: Abingdon,
1993), 22–38; Marie-Theres Wacker, “Der Fal Eva(s): Christlich-feministische Theologie und die
Paradiesgeschichte,” in Feminismus, Islam, Nation: Frauenbewegungen im Maghreb, in Zentralasien
und in der Türkei (ed. Claudia Schöning-Kalender, Aylâ Neusel, Mechtild M. Jansen; Frankfurt:
Campus, 1997), 241–48. For further bibliography and assessment of feminist contributions, see
Eve & Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender (ed. Kristen E. Kvam,
Linda S. Schearing, and Valarie H. Ziegler; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999); Joseph
Abraham, Eve: Accused or Acquitted. An Analysis of Feminist Readings of the Creation Narrative
Texts in Genesis 1–3 (Cumbria, CA: Paternoster, 2002); and Susanne Scholz, “A Third Kind of
Feminist Reading: Toward a Feminist Sociology of Biblical Hermeneutics,” Currents in Biblical
Research 9 (2010): 9–32. Yet despite these multivalent and often liberating portrayals of Eve, Scholz
notes that such nuanced interpretations essentially remain ensconced in the academy. The Chris­
tian right powerfully promotes interpretations of Eve as subordinate to Adam, and Western media
lucratively promulgate images of Eve as a seducer. See Scholz, “Feminist Reading,” 21–24.
 Parker: Blaming Eve Alone 731

word, hm(, supplies essential information by indicating the man’s presence when
the woman takes the fateful bite. Yet even though hm( carries meaning and is undis­
puted in our oldest sources, esteemed translators who avow fidelity to the Hebrew
text have left it untranslated. These include Jerome, the Standard Bible Committee
(responsible for the Revised Standard Version), the translation committee of the 1985
Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, and Robert Alter, among many others. By exam­
ining the biblical text, grammatical reference works, commentaries, ancient sources,
multiple translations of Gen 3:6b, and translation committee notes, I explore why
these scholars deviated from the Hebrew text in their translations. This investigation
of hm( shows how translators collude (sometimes unintentionally) with culturally
prevalent and historically pernicious depictions of Eve.3

I.  Eve’s Assumed Guilt

Depictions of Eve as evil have endured for millennia. Ancient interpreters

reasoned that the woman yields to the serpent’s appeal, revealing her base nature,
and receives God’s punishment before the man, showing her greater crime. In a
discussion entitled “Blame It on the Woman,” James L. Kugel reviews rationales for
understanding Eve as guiltier than Adam and supplies a provocative smattering of
quotations. Ben Sira explains, “From a woman was sin’s beginning, and because of
her, we all die” (Sir 25:24). The Apocalypse of Moses asks, “Oh evil woman! Why
have you wrought destruction among us?” (Apoc. Mos. 21:6). 2 Enoch excuses the
man from defilement: “In such a form he [the devil] entered paradise and corrupted
Eve. But he did not contact Adam” (2 En. [J] 31:6). Pseudo-Philo similarly blames
woman for humanity’s downfall: “But that man transgressed my ways and was
persuaded by his wife; and she was deceived by the serpent. And then death was
ordained for the generations of men” (L.A.B. 13:10).4 Early Christian interpreters

3 As William E. Phipps documents, the understanding that Eve is wicked and that therefore

all women deserve punishment has had detrimental and even lethal consequences for women
over centuries. See Phipps, Genesis and Gender: Biblical Myths of Sexuality and Their Cultural
Impact (New York: Praeger, 1989), 51–66. Perhaps the most heinous historical practice is torturing
and killing women as witches because of their despicable nature inherited from Eve (see pp.
61–62).
4 Kugel, The Bible as It Was (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,

1997), 75–78. See also Helen Schüngel-Straumann, Die Frau am Anfang: Eva und die Folgen (2nd
ed.; Exegese in unserer Zeit 6; Münster: LIT, 1997), 21–59; Andrew Louth, ed., Genesis 1–11
(ACCS 1; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 77–79; Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the
Serpent: Sex and Politics in Early Christianity (New York: Vintage, 1988), 133–37; and Alice Ogden
Bellis, “Eve in the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books,” in Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of
Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and
the New Testament (ed. Carol Meyers, Toni Craven, and Ross S. Kraemer; Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 2000), 82–83. Ogden Bellis notes that Ben Sira’s attribution of sin to the first woman would
have been atypical of ancient Jewish exegetes, who found humanity’s initial fault in Gen 6:1–4.
732 Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 (2013)

continue in this vein. Tertullian vilifies women as Eve’s descendants: “You are the
one who opened the door to the Devil. You are the one who first plucked the fruit
of the forbidden tree, you are the first who deserted the divine law; you are the one
who persuaded him whom the Devil was not strong enough to attack. All too eas­
ily you destroyed the image of God, namely, man” (Cult. fem. 1.1). The writer of
1 Timothy instructs: “Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit
no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam
was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived
and became a transgressor” (1 Tim 2:13–14). The Christian canonization of such
misogynist interpretation has guaranteed its place in exegetical history.5
Explanations of the garden scene that find fault solely with Eve are difficult to
sustain if Adam is with her at the time of transgression. If Adam is there and knows
that disobedience is imminent, why does he not say or do something to intervene?
Excusing Adam from responsibility, some readings presume a physical separation
between Adam and Eve when she partakes of the fruit.6

5 Gary A. Anderson explains that, in early Christian interpretation, “Eve is understood as

gullible, dumb, beholden to the desires of her senses, and desirous of taking Adam with her when
she falls” (The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination [Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2001], 84; for discussion of differences in early Jewish and Christian
understanding, see 75–84). John A. Phillips concurs that, in early Christian exegesis, “She is a
dilution in power, rational faculties, self-control, piety, and moral strength. A flaw, present in her
since her creation, sets up the scene in the garden” (Eve: The History of an Idea [New York:
Harper & Row, 1984), 57. Early Jewish interpretation shows rabbinic efforts to explain Adam’s
assumed absence during Eve’s conversation with the snake. Genesis Rabbah 19:3 offers one
possibility: “Abba Halfon bar Quriyah said: ‘He had been occupied with his natural functions and
fallen asleep,’ ” as noted by Anne Lapidus Lerner, Eternally Eve: Images of Eve in the Hebrew Bible,
Midrash, and Modern Jewish Poetry (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2007), 96. For an
overview of feminist responses to misogynist interpretations of Genesis 1–3, see Scholz, “Feminist
Reading,” 12–21.
6 Two notable examples come from John Milton’s poetic epic Paradise Lost (excerpted

above) and the apocryphal Life of Adam and Eve. For discussion of Eve in Paradise Lost, see
Diane Kelsey McColley, Milton’s Eve (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983); Anderson,
Genesis of Perfection, 107–11; and Helen Wilcox, “ ‘ Two of Far Nobler Shape’: Milton’s
Re-Creation of Eve and Adam,” in The Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretations of the
Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions (ed. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen; Themes in
Biblical Narrative 3; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 156–71. Philip C. Almond discusses portrayals of Eve
in seventeenth-century English literature and the changes in interpretation that ensue when the
snake becomes Satan. Almond notes, “All [poets and commentators] were agreed that Eve had
separated from Adam when Satan, waiting his chance, approached her” (Adam and Eve in
Seventeenth-Century Thought [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999], 188). For
discussion of Adam’s obliviousness in the Life of Adam and Eve, see Gary A. Anderson, “The
Culpability of Eve: From Genesis to Timothy,” in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of
the Old Testament in the New (ed. Craig A. Evans; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 237–46.
Interpretations of Genesis 3 that rely on Adam’s ignorance inadvertently testify to the importance
of hm(, which functions as an obstacle to their readings.
 Parker: Blaming Eve Alone 733

The woman might also be excused from blame since she was not yet created
when God warns the first human not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and
evil. In Gen 2:16–17 the Hebrew verb forms appear in the second person masculine
singular (v. 16b: ‫אכל תאכל‬, “you [m.s.] shall surely eat”; v. 17a: ‫לא תאכל‬, “you [m.s]
shall not eat”; v. 17b: ‫מות תמות‬, “you [m.s] will surely die”) or have a masculine
singular possessive suffix (v. 17b: ‫אכלך‬, lit., “your [m.s] eating”). This grammar
supports Eve’s innocence in Gen 3:1–6 because only Adam could know exactly
which tree God meant. On the basis of her response to the serpent in Gen 3:2,
readers must assume that Adam told Eve about the forbidden fruit. Septuagint
translators, acknowledging this conundrum, switch from the second person mas­
culine singular in Gen 2:16 (φάγῃ, “you [m.s.] shall not eat”), to the second person
plural in the next verse (v. 17a: οὐ φάγεσθε, “you [pl.] shall not eat”; v.17b: φάγητε,
“you [pl.] eat”; ἀποθανεῖσθε, “you [pl.] will die”). These verb forms in Gen 2:17 of the
LXX are both nonsensical, commanding one person as if he were two or more, and
logical, paving the way for Eve. In the Hebrew text, however, the burden of respon­
sibility lies with the first human being, who alone hears the divine inter­diction.

II.  The Significance of hm(

As the story progresses, the importance of hm( in Gen 3:6 increases, especially
in English translations. When the serpent talks with the woman in Gen 3:1–5, the
Hebrew text has both speakers consistently employ first and second person plural
verbs (v. 1b: ‫לא תאכלו‬, “you [pl.] shall not eat”; v. 2b: ‫נאכל‬, “we may eat”; v. 3a: ‫לא‬
‫תאכלו‬, “you [pl.] shall not eat,” ‫לא תגעו‬, “you [pl.] shall not touch”; v. 3b: ‫פן־תמתון‬,
“lest you [pl.] die”; v. 4b: ‫לא־מות תמתון‬, “you [pl.] will not die”; v. 5a: ‫אכלכם‬, “you
[pl.] eat”; v. 5b: ‫והייתם‬, “you [pl.] will be”). This repeated use of Hebrew plural verbs
could create the impression that Adam is beside Eve throughout this scene. In
modern English, however, the plurality is lost with the second person pronoun
“you,” which obviously can indicate one or more. To an English reader, the only
possible hint of Adam’s presence during the serpent–woman dialogue is Eve’s use
of the first person plural (lk)n, “we may eat”) in v. 2b. However, Eve’s including
Adam as “we”—or any use of the plural verbs—does not require the man’s physical
company. Indeed, Adam is never directly mentioned, addressed, consulted, or
acknowledged in any way in Genesis 3 until Eve gives him the fruit in v. 6b. At the
very least, his being “with her” minimizes the possibility of a gap in the text where
Eve might travel to find Adam or share the fruit later. More likely, hm( resolves any
lingering ambiguity about the man being with the woman when she eats.
Reference works for Biblical Hebrew consistently translate hm( in Gen 3:6.
Grammarians explain that hm( is in apposition to “her husband” and functions
adjectivally, providing information about the man. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar cites
this phrase as an example of a preposition qualifying a noun appositionally and
734 Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 (2013)

interprets hm( h#y)l in Gen 3:6 as “her husband who was with her” (GKC §131t).7
Paul Joüon also lists this preposition and indirect object pronoun as attributive to
the noun and renders hm( h#y)l as “à son mari (qui était) avec elle.”8 L. Koehler
explains that this phrase forms a relative clause and translates hm( h#y)l as “ihrem
Mann, der bei ihr war.”9 Ernst Jenni gives Gen 3:6 in an exercise and translates hm(
as necessary and expected: “und gab auch ihrem Manne bei ihr, und er aß.”10 Bruce
Waltke and M. O’Connor provide Gen 3:6b as an example of an adjectival modifier
and translate, “And she also gave (some) to her husband (who was) with her” (IBHS
4.6.1a [8]; emphasis original). Ronald J. Williams, referring to use of the adverb Mg
meaning “also,” renders Gen 3:6b: “She gave some to her husband with her also.”11
None of these reference works explains that hm( is tautological or assumed with
the verb Ntn.12 All convey “with her” explicitly in their translations.
Commentators spanning centuries affirm the significance of hm( in Gen 3:6b,
even while denying its apparent sense. In his 1554 Genesis commentary, John ­Calvin
offers this assessment:
And gave also unto her husband with her. From these words, some conjecture that
Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent,
which is by no means credible. Yet it might be that he soon joined her, and that,
even before the woman tasted the fruit of the tree, she related the conversation
held with the serpent, and entangled him with the same fallacies by which she
herself had been deceived. Others refer to the particle hm( (immah), “with her,”
to the conjugal bond, which may be received.13

Calvin finds the text’s translation straightforward and recognizes the significant
role of hm(. Nonetheless, he dismisses Adam’s presence as “by no means credible.”
Needing to explain that the man is “with her,” Calvin interprets this maritally, intro­
ducing a commentary on their relationship, which seems unlikely.
Writing in the nineteenth century, H. D. M. Spence offers a comparable insight:
With her. An indication that Adam was present throughout the whole scene
(Delitzsch, Wordsworth), which is not likely, else why did he not restrain Eve? or

  7 Citing GKC, Claus Westermann explains that hm( designates “closer definition of a noun
by means of a preposition” (Genesis 1–11: A Commentary [trans. John J. Scullion; BKAT 1;
Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984], 185).
  8 Joüon, Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1923), §132a.
  9 Koehler, “‫ ּוְׁשָאר ָיׁשּוב‬und der nackte Relativsatz,” VT 3 (1953): 84–85 (emphasis original).
10 Jenni, Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments (Basel: Helbing & Lichten­

hahn, 1981), § 21.5.6 (emphasis original). Justus Olshausen’s grammar (Lehrbuch der Hebräischen
Sprache [Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn, 1861], §223c) translates M( as “bei” or “mit,”
frequently appearing with a prepositional suffix.
11 Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976), §378.
12  GKC specifies that the preposition here does not depend on the verb (§131t).
13 Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis (trans. John King; Grand

Rapids: Baker, 1979), 151–52.

 Parker: Blaming Eve Alone 735

that he arrived just as the temptation closed (Calvin), which is only a conjecture;
better regarded as a reference to their conjugal oneness (Macdonald).14

Spence realizes that the blame must be shared if Adam is there, and he therefore
dismisses this reading. Ironically, Spence views Calvin’s interpretation as conjecture,
although he provides no textual basis for his own understanding and agrees with
Calvin that hm( indicates a marriage bond.
More recently, Gary Anderson notes the impact of hm(, although his inter­
pretation also seems strained.
If Adam was with Eve at the moment of the transgression, how could he be
ignorant? Our problem is one of translation. The original Hebrew could also be
rendered, “she also gave some of the fruit to her husband and he ate along with
her [‫ׂאכל‬
ַ ‫ם־ל ִאישָׁ הּ ִע ָמּהּ ַויּ‬
ְ ַ‫]וַ ִּת ֵתּן גּ‬.” In this translation, the emphasis is on the fact
that both ate, not on physical proximity at the time of eating. The text does not
explicitly say that Adam was beside the tree as Eve con­sumed the fruit.15

Anderson rightly observes that Adam must recognize the impending disobedience
if he is with the serpent and Eve, while his translation and commentary downplay
the man’s presence. Anderson puts “with her” after the verb (“and he ate”) and not
after the noun (“her husband”), as it appears in the Hebrew text. Perhaps for fluid­
ity, he inserts “along” (“along with her”), which has no corresponding word in
Hebrew. Anderson’s rendering further contradicts the punctuation of the MT,
which has a conjunctive mereka accent in h#y)l (“to her husband”), linking it to
hm( (“with her”), and a disjunctive tipḥ ah accent in hm( (“with her”), separating
it from lk)yw (“and he ate”). Further, among the scores of English translations
consulted for this article (listed below), Anderson’s placement of “with her” is rare.16
Most significantly, Anderson’s reading is not supported by Hebrew grammars (dis­
cussed above), none of which suggests rendering hm( adverbially. Yet even if we
were to accept the readings of Calvin, Spence, and Anderson with hm( indicating
a dyadic bond or shared action, this maneuvering still prevents the reader from
blaming only Eve. Nonetheless, commentators who expound on Eve’s solitude and
sin are legion.17

14 Spence, Genesis (Pulpit Commentary 1; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1880), 59.
15 Anderson, “Culpability of Eve,” 242.
16 Among fifty English translations consulted, only The Holy Bible: The New Berkeley Version

in Modern English (ed. Gerrit Verkuyl; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969) and The Holy Bible: A
Translation from the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals (trans. Ronald
Knox; New York: Sheed & Ward, 1956) also translate “with her” as referring to Adam’s eating.
(These are listed as the New Berkeley Version and the Knox Version in the chart of English trans­
lations below.)
17 For example, Gerhard von Rad sees the woman as isolated when taking the fruit. “The

woman is now alone.… The narrator draws a wonderful picture in v. 6, a scene without words in
which the woman stands before the tree reflecting and then decides.… The one who has been led
astray now becomes a temptress” (Genesis: A Commentary [rev. ed.; OTL 1; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1972], 90). Hermann Gunkel concurs, “When woman seduces, man is unable to withstand.… The
736 Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 (2013)

Perhaps the most convincing reason for retaining hm( in translation is its
undisputed place among ancient witnesses. The MT, Septuagint, Peshitta, Samari­
tan Pentateuch, Samaritan targums, and Targums Onqelos, Neofiti, and Pseudo-­
Jonathan all include this appositional phrase, as indicated in the list below.18

Genesis 3:6b:
Masoretic Text ‫ותתן גם לאישה עמה ויאכל‬
LXX καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς μετʼ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἔφαγον.
Peshitta lK)w hM( hl(bl p) tbhYw
Samaritan Pentateuch ‫ותתן גם לאישה עמה ויאכלו‬
Samaritan Targum J (ms Or 7562) ‫ויהבת אף לגברה עמה ויאכלו‬
Samaritan Targum A (ms 3
   of the Shechem Synagogue) ‫ויהבת אף לגברה עמה ויאכלון‬
Targum Onqelos ‫ויהבת אף לבעלה עמה ואכל‬
Targum Neofiti ‫ויהבת לחוד לבעלה עמה ויאכל‬
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ‫ויהבת אף לבעלה עימה ואכל‬
These ancient sources reveal some minor differences in their translational choices.
Both the Septuagint and the Samaritan traditions pluralize the final verb (ἔφαγον,
wlk)yw, Nwlk)yw: “and they ate”), further underscoring the pair’s combined action.
The Peshitta translates ‫ לאישה‬as hl(bl, as do Targums Onqelos, Neofiti, and
Pseudo-Jonathan (‫)לבעלה‬, while the Samaritan targums prefer ‫לגברה‬. Translations
of the adverb ‫ גם‬vary slightly (καί, P) [p)], and ‫)לחוד‬, without notable change in
meaning. Yet all these ancient witnesses include hm( or an equivalent term.

III.  Translations That Do Not Convey hm(

Jerome’s Latin translation, the Vulgate, dates from the late fourth to the early
fifth century c.e. and is the first source to refrain from relaying that Adam was “with

woman’s seduction of the man is a common motif ” (Genesis [German 1901; trans. Mark E. Biddle;
Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997], 17). Umberto
Cassuto similarly remarks, “In regard to the man, the Bible does not state his motives for eating,
as in the case of the woman, since for him it suffices that she is the one who gives him the fruit. It
is the way of the world for the man to be easily swayed by the woman” (A Commentary on the
Book of Genesis: Part I, From Adam to Noah [trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961],
148).
18 Unfortunately, no fragment containing Gen 3:6 remains among the Dead Sea Scrolls. (A

small fragment exists from Gen 3:1–2 [4QGenk] and another from Gen 3:11–14 [1QGen], but
Gen 3:6 is lost.) See David L. Washburn, A Catalog of Biblical Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls
(Text-critical Studies 2; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 12.
 Parker: Blaming Eve Alone 737

her.” Jerome renders Gen 3:6b as: deditque viro suo qui comedit (“she gave to her
husband who ate”). As is well known, Jerome prided himself on his scrupulous
attention to the Hebraica veritas.19 While prioritizing the Hebrew, Jerome also
worked closely with the Septuagint.20 This increases the likelihood that Jerome’s
decision to leave out a form of “with her” was intentional, since both source texts
contain this information (hm(; μετʼ αὐτῆς). Jerome wrote Hebrew Questions on
Genesis (QHG) to explain his basis for translation decisions, which are often exe­
getical.21 Although Jerome does not mention Gen 3:6 in QHG (the selection of
verses is unsystematic), his translational decision here is noteworthy. By omitting
some form of “with her,” Jerome forsakes his commitment to the “Hebrew truth,”
ignores the further attestation of the phrase in the LXX, and arguably promotes his
own scriptural interpretation.
After closely scrutinizing Genesis in the Vulgate, Jane Barr suggests that
Jerome’s strong feelings about women (often, but not always, antipathetic) influ­
ence his translation. Barr set out to compare the LXX, Latin translations before
the Vulgate, and especially the Hebrew text with Jerome’s Genesis. While a fem­
inist focus was not part of her original project, she came to realize that most
irregularities were found in passages concerning women. Barr observes that
“whenever Jerome approached a passage where women were involved his usual
objectivity deserted him, and his translation became less precise, and, not infre­
quently, biased.”22 Most of the passages Barr cites as evidence stem from the
ancestral narratives. However, the example she finds most significant is Gen 3:16b,
yielding this comparison:

19 For further discussion of Jerome’s commitment to the “Hebrew truth,” see J. N. D. Kelly,

Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), 153–67.
20 For discussion of Jerome’s radicalism in relying on the Hebrew over the Greek, see Sarah

Kamin, “The Theological Significance of the Hebraica Veritas in Jerome’s Thought,” in “Sha’arei
Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon
(ed. Michael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov with the assistance of Weston W. Fields; Winona Lake,
IΝ: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 243–53.
21 C. T. R. Hayward suggests that Jerome wrote QHG to affirm his respect for Jewish

Scriptures, to justify his work with Jewish scholars, and possibly to combat any suspicion of
plagiarism. See Hayward, trans. and commentator, Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 13–14; for broader discussion of motives behind Jerome’s translation,
see 7–23. Hayward notes, “The strong exegetical element in QHG is a reminder that theological
concerns are never far from Jerome’s agenda” (p. 14).
22 Barr, “The Vulgate Genesis and St. Jerome’s Attitude to Women,” in Papers Presented to

the Eighth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held at Oxford, 1979 (ed. Elizabeth A.
Livingstone; StPatr 17; Oxford: Pergamon, 1982), 269. Jerome’s views about women are evident
in Against Jovian (written in 393), where he maintains that Eve’s sin of disobedience relegates
women to childbearing and uxorial submission. See John Oppel, “Saint Jerome and the History
of Sex,” Viator 24 (1993): 6–7. For wider discussion of Jerome, sexuality, and women, see Patrick
Laurence, Le monachisme féminin antique: Idéal hiéronymien et réalité historique (Spicilegium
sacrum Lovaniense: Études et documents 52; Leuven: Peeters, 2010).
738 Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 (2013)

Hebrew: ‫ואל־אישך תשוקתך והוא ימשל־בך‬

and your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you
LXX: καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου, καὶ αὐτός σου κυριεύσει
and your turning will be to your husband, and he will rule over you
Old Latin: et conversio tua ad tuum virum et ipse tui dominabitur
and your turning will be to your husband and he will rule over you
Vulgate : et sub viri potestate eris et ipse dominabitur tui
and you will be under the power of men and he will rule over you23

The Hebrew noun ‫ תשוקה‬suggests “longing” or “desire.”24 Jerome instead conveys

‫ ואל־אישך תשוקתך‬as et sub viri potestate eris (“and you will be under the power of
men”; emphasis added). As in Gen 3:16b, Jerome’s translation of Gen 3:6b is preju-
diced against the woman.
Recognizing Jerome’s translational liberties (especially in Gen 3:16), John
Flood notes that Jerome highlights the disparity between Eve (eva in Latin) and
Mary (ave Maria: “hail” Mary).25 This palindrome reinforces their opposition. In
one of his letters Jerome aphoristically professes: mors per Evam, vita per Mariam
(“death through Eve, life through Mary”).26 The contrast between the two women
is clearer if Adam is not in the picture when Eve eats the fruit. Flood observes, “The
majority of Christian exegetes following Jerome assumed that Adam was separated
from Eve during her temptation. Indeed, this is something that commentators seek
to explain one way or another.”27 In addition to altering the story for subsequent
commentaries, Jerome’s translation sets a precedent that continues to the present.
The following chart compares fifty English translations of Gen 3:6b spanning more
than six centuries.28 Clearly not an aberration, over one-third of these translations
(eighteen, or 36 percent) do not specify that the man is “with her” (below in bold).

23 Barr,“Vulgate Genesis,” 272. English translations mine.

24 Most translations, such as the NRSV (“yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he
shall rule over you”), leave the element of sexual desire as a possible interpretation. Joel N. Lohr
compellingly argues that this understanding of hqw#t is misleading (“Sexual Desire? Eve, Genesis
3:16, and hqw#t,” JBL 130 [2011]: 227–46).
25 This theme is developed by the church fathers, including Tertullian, Justin Martyr,

Irenaeus of Lyons, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, and Augustine. Flood notes that this
typology develops to associate Eve with the synagogue and Mary with the church and continues
into the Renaissance. See Flood, Representations of Eve in Antiquity and the English Middle Ages
(New York: Routledge, 2011), 13–16.
26 Jérôme Labourt, trans., Saint Jérôme Lettres, vol. 1 (Paris: L’Association Guillaume Budé,

1949), 22.21, p. 132.

27 Flood, Representations of Eve, 7.
28 Most of these translations come from Bibles in the Trowbridge Reading Room of the Yale

Divinity School Library. I have purposely consulted a random collection from evangelical, Jewish,
Protestant, and Roman Catholic publishers, some of which supply loose translations. I do not
distinguish these translations by tradition since that might lead to religious or political inferences,
which diverts from my purpose. Rather, this chart illustrates the widespread practice of omitting
some form of “with her.”
 Parker: Blaming Eve Alone 739

Translator/Version Published Text

(OT/HB)

John Wycliffe 1382 and 3af to hir hosebande, and he eet.

William Tyndale 1530 and gaue vnto hir huſband alſo with her,
and he ate.
Miles Coverdale 1535 and gaue vnto hir husbande also therof,
and he ate.
Great Bible 1539 and gaue vnto her husband beynge with her,
which dyd eate also.
Thomas Matthew Bible 1549 & gaue vnto her husband also [wt] her,
& he ate.
Geneva Bible 1560 and gaue also to her husband with her,
and he did eate.
Bishops’ Bible 1568 and gaue also vnto her husbande beyng with
her, and he dyd eate.
Douay Rheims Bible 1609 and gaue to her husband, who did eate.
King James Version 1611 and gaue also vnto her husband with her,
and hee did eate.
Richard Challoner 1750 and gave to her husband, who did eat.
Noah Webster 1833 and gave also to her husband with her,
and he ate.
Young’s Literal Translation 1862 and giveth also to her husband with her,
and he doth eat;
Darby Bible 1884 and gave also to her husband with her,
and he ate.
Douay-Rheims 1899 and gave to her husband, who did eat.
American Edition
American Standard Version 1901 and she gave also unto her husband with her,
and he did eat.
Jewish Publication Society 1917 and she gave also unto her husband with her,
Tanakh and he did eat.
James Moffatt 1935 she also gave some to her husband, and he
ate.
American Translation 1935 she also gave some to her husband with her,
and he ate.
Joseph Smith 1944 and gave also unto her husband with her,
(revised translation) and he did eat.
Revised Standard Version 1952 and she also gave some to her husband,
and he ate.
740 Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 (2013)

Translator/Version Published Text

(OT/HB)

Knox Version 1956 and she gave some to her husband, and he
ate with her.
Complete Bible 1964 she also gave some to her husband with her,
and he ate.
Jerusalem Bible 1966 She gave some also to her husband who was
with her, and he ate it.
New Berkeley Version 1969 she also gave to her husband, who ate
with her.
New American Bible 1970 and she also gave some to her husband, who
was with her, and he ate it.
New English Bible 1970 She also gave her husband some and he
ate it.
Living Bible 1971 and gave some to her husband, and he ate
it too.
New American Standard 1971 and she gave also to her husband with her,
and he ate.
Bible in Living English 1972 and she took some of its fruit and ate it, and
gave some to her husband with her, and he
ate it.
Today’s English Translation 1976 Then she gave some to her husband, and
(Good News Bible) and he also ate it.
New International Version 1978 She also gave some to her husband, who
was with her, and he ate it.
Bible in Basic English 1981 she took of its fruit, and gave it to her
husband.
New King James Version 1982 She also gave to her husband with her, and
he ate.
New Jerusalem Version 1985 She also gave some to her husband who was
with her, and he ate it.
Jewish Publication Society 1985 She also gave some to her husband, and
New Tanakh he ate.
New Revised Standard 1989 and she also gave some to her husband,
Version who was with her, and he ate.
Revised English Bible 1989 she also gave some to her husband, and he
ate it.
 Parker: Blaming Eve Alone 741

Translator/Version Published Text

(OT/HB)

Twenty-First Century 1994 and gave also unto her husband with her;
King James Bible and he ate.
Contemporary English 1995 Her husband was there with her, so she gave
Version some to him, and he ate it too.
Everett Fox 1995 and gave also to her husband beside her,
and he ate.
New Living Translation 1996 Then she gave some to her husband,
who was with her, and he ate it, too.
Robert Alter 1996 and she also gave to her man, and he ate.
Complete Jewish Bible 1998 and she gave also to her husband with her,
and he ate.
English Standard Version 2001 and she also gave some to her husband
who was with her, and he ate.
The Message 2002 she took and ate the fruit and then gave
some to her husband, and he ate.
Holman Christian Standard 2004 she also gave [some] to her husband, [who
was] with her, and he ate [it].
Contemporary Torah 2006 She also gave some to her husband, and
he ate.
Inclusive Bible 2007 She also gave some to the man beside her,
and he ate it.

Robert Crumb (illustrator) 2009

Reprinted from The Book of Genesis: Illustrated

by R. Crumb. Copyright © 2009 by Robert Crumb.
With the permission of the publisher,
W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Common English Bible 2011 and also gave some to her husband, who was
with her, and he ate it.
742 Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 (2013)

While a thorough comparative analysis of these translations is beyond the

scope of this article, a few pertinent observations merit mention. First, strong
translations proliferate as the bases for scholarly commentaries.29 Further, a repu­
table translation becomes a template for later translators who may or may not have
solid knowledge of biblical languages.30 Various translations also yield an expansive
range of meaning. For example, the Contemporary English Version (1995) takes
liberties to highlight the man’s presence: “Her husband was there with her, so she
gave some to him, and he ate it too.” This translation extends the idea of accompa­
niment; the man is the initial subject and the woman responds to his presence.
Everett Fox stresses physical proximity by rendering hm( as “beside her.” Alterna­
tively, the Basic English Bible translates, “she took of its fruit, and gave it to her
husband,” without even mentioning that Adam eats. Of course, these translations
and versions are directed at different audiences, which influences translation and
publication decisions. For example, a translator might want to imitate the literary
style of the Hebrew as much as possible (e.g., Fox, Alter).31 Some Bible publications
prioritize accessibility for a broad audience (e.g., Today’s English Translation, Com­
mon English Bible). Most enigmatic, however, are formal committees of erudite
biblical scholars who explicitly adopt a word-for-word (or formal equivalency)
approach and yet refrain from translating hm(. This is the case with the Standard
Bible Committee, which translated the RSV, and the translation committee respon­
sible for the 1985 Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (NJPS).

IV.  Omission of hm( in the RSV and NJPS

Before examining the printed discussions and unpublished notes of these

translators, we do well to touch on translation theory and the particular task of
Bible translation. While faithfulness to the original text may be “the sine qua non
of translation,” this fidelity can take many forms.32 The translator’s goals and the

29 For example, von Rad bases his OTL Genesis commentary on the RSV, which does not
include that Adam was “with her,” a point he elucidates in his discussion (von Rad, Genesis, 90).
30 For example, the Wycliffe, Coverdale, Great Bible, Douay-Rheims, and Knox translations

are all based on the Vulgate. The NKJV modernizes the KJV. The ASV is the basis for the Living
Bible and the RSV. The RSV, in turn, is the textual foundation for the New English Bible, Revised
English Bible, and the NRSV. The NJPS is the basis for the Contemporary Torah. Robert Alter’s
translation provides the text for Robert Crumb’s Illustrated Genesis. Accordingly, one translation
that leaves out “with her” may spawn many others.
31 Both Fox and Alter seek to adhere closely to the Hebrew, sometimes at the cost of stilted

English. However, Fox retains hm( in translation, whereas Alter does not. By Alter’s own admission,
this is due to oversight. Further discussion follows.
32 See Michael Scott Doyle, “Translation and the Space Between: Operative Parameters of

an Enterprise,” in Translation—Theory and Practice: Tension and Interdependence (ed. Mildred L.

Larson; American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series 5; New York: State
University of New York at Binghamton [SUNY], 1991), 14. Doyle emphasizes the challenge of
 Parker: Blaming Eve Alone 743

audience’s needs determine translation strategies, along with the merits and
­ eficiencies of a given work’s earlier translation(s), when applicable.33 Regarding
d
Bible translation, Eugene A. Nida offers essentially three categories: the formal
equivalence translation, in which “the message in the receptor language should
match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language”; a gloss
translation, which is “designed to permit the reader to identify himself as fully as
possible with a person in the source-language context, and to understand as much
as he can of the customs, manner of thoughts, and means of expression”; and
dynamic equivalence translation (in various degrees), in which “one is not so
concerned with matching the receptor-language message with the source-­language
message, but with the dynamic relationship…, that the relationship between
receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed
between the original receptors and the message.”34 These classifications provide
a foundation for understanding the work of the RSV and NJPS translation com­
mittees, which explicitly aim for formal equivalence translations. As their own
writings testify, these biblical scholars seek to adhere closely to the original lan­
guages and to correct earlier translations.
The Revised Standard Version was translated by the Standard Bible Commit­
tee under the direction of Luther Weigle.35 The committee members also compiled
a slim volume of articles on their translation, edited by Weigle. In the preface, he
explains that the RSV is a revision of the ASV (1901), which itself was a revision of
the KJV. Before any change from the ASV appeared in print, it ultimately had to be
approved by a two-thirds vote. While revising the ASV for the OT of the RSV,
scholars worked primarily from the MT; any deviation from the Hebrew was based
on other ancient texts in Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin.36 The committee
allowed for departure from the Hebrew only when it was required to make the text
intelligible for its modern audience. Weigle specifies that

maintaining a dual devotion to both the source-language text (SL) and the target language (TL).
For fuller discussion (laden with diagrams) of how linguistic fidelity transmutes between the
original and target languages, see pp. 13–26.
33 Theorist Charles S. Kraszewski lists four categories of translations: informational, which

recreates the original text as closely as possible; corrective, which improves upon mistakes of
earlier translations; critical, which values interpreting the work in translation; and proselytizing,
which drives to connect with the viewpoints of a target audience (Four Translation Strategies
Determined by the Particular Needs of the Receptor: Translation Theory Backwards [Lewiston, NY:
Edwin Mellen, 1998], 11–30).
34 Nida, Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures

Involved in Bible Translating (2nd ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 159. As Phyllis Trible pointed out to
me, Nida later designated “dynamic equivalence” as “functional equivalence.”
35 This group of scholars convened at Yale Divinity School from 1929 to 1952. For discussion

about this committee and its work, see Peter J. Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures:
American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
36 Luther A. Weigle, Chair, and Members of the Revision Committee, An Introduction to the

Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament (New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1952), 7–8.
744 Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 (2013)

the responsibility of the translator is clear. Representing the best extant under­
standing of the language with which he deals, he is charged to tell as accurately
as he can in his own language precisely what the original says. This is of an
importance to bear some emphasis. The Bible translator assumes strict respon­
sibility to say in English just what the Biblical writers said in Hebrew, or in Ara­
maic, or in Greek, as the case may have been.37

The equivalent of “with her” appears in the MT, ASV, and supplementary ancient
witnesses, and the RSV translators are reluctant to divert from these texts. Still they
do not mention that the man was “with her.” Why not?
The unpublished agenda notes from the Standard Bible Committee reveal that
the omission of “with her” was not an oversight. The pages of these typed and
handwritten notes for Genesis are numbered up to 159, although only sixteen of
these pages are preserved in Yale’s archives. References to Gen 3:6b appear on the
agenda sheets of William Irwin (p. 16), J. Phillip Hyatt (p. 81), and Herbert May (p.
85).38 Most pertinent for this discussion are pages 16 and 85, which include the
question of translating hm(. Page 16, reproduced in part below, shows two trans­
lational options for Gen 3:6bα: “also to her husband with her, and/to her husband
also and.”

Special Collections, Yale Divinity School Library, Papers of the Standard Bible Committee.

The agenda shows the words “with her” as part of a line that is crossed out. The
alternative “to her husband also” is also crossed out, and neither translation on this
line appears in print. However, in the margins of p. 1, Weigle has scribbled: “a line
through means either rejected or that it has been done either on MSS or as sug­
gested on another page of agenda.” A cross-out does not necessarily mean a trans­
lational option has been discarded, although it does here. The translation “also to

37 Ibid., 13–14.
38 References to Gen 3:6a appear on the agenda notes of Weigle (p. 12) and James Muilenburg

(p. 92). For further discussion of these committee members and their work, see also Herbert
Gordon May, Our English Bible in the Making: The Word of Life in Living Language (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1952), 103–13; Weigle, Introduction to the RSV; and Thuesen, Discordance with
Scriptures, 67–119.
 Parker: Blaming Eve Alone 745

her husband with her” (as in the crossed-out line above) matches the ASV, with the
slight alteration of “unto” changed to “to.” Nonetheless, the Standard Bible Com­
mittee removes “with her” for their final translation.
George Herbert May’s copy of the agenda (p. 85, pictured below) does not
include a translation for hm( in Gen 3:6b. Any suggestion that the man was “with
her” is gone, as May’s agenda for this verse reads, “And she gave also, etc./And she
also gave some to her husband, and he.”

Special Collections, Yale Divinity School Library, Papers of the Standard Bible Committee.

Next to this line is scrawled “2 BW,” meaning that two committee members (likely
Millar Burrows and Luther Weigle) had approved this choice. Once crossed out,
2 BW has been replaced by Σ +. A 3 + appears to indicate three committee members
approved a translation (as seen next to 2.24 with the penciled word “done”). This
backwards 3 (resembling a capital sigma) and a plus sign appear on line items that
list the surname initial of one or more scholars, apparently indicating a switch to
approval, likely after some discussion. It seems reasonable to infer that all three
scholars initially working on Genesis (Burrows [?], Weigle, and James Fleming,
executive secretary of the Old Testament section) have approved the translation
“and she also gave some to her husband, and he” which ultimately appears in print.
Like the RSV, the NJPS does not mention that the man is with the woman in
Gen 3:6. In 1955, a committee of seven Jewish translators began work on a new
Torah translation, with Harry M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College–Jewish Insti­
tute of Religion as editor-in-chief.39 (Orlinksy had served on the Standard Bible
Committee as its only Jewish scholar.) In the published Notes on the New Translation
of the Torah, Orlinsky begins, “The purpose of this volume of Notes is to account
for the significant or interesting departures in the New Jewish Version (NJV) of the
Torah from the older version of 1917.”40 The NJPS removes “with her” from the
1917 JPS Tanakh, yet Orlinsky does not discuss this departure in his Notes. Instead,

39 For Orlinsky’s address expressing the need for this publication, see Harry M. Orlinsky,

“Wanted: A New English Translation of the Bible for the Jewish People,” in idem, Essays in Biblical
Culture and Bible Translation (New York: Ktav, 1974), 349–62. The other scholars and rabbis
initially working on the Torah translation were H. L. Ginsberg, E. A. Speiser, M. Arzt, B. J.
Bamberger, H. Freedman, and S. Grayzel.
40 Harry M. Orlinsky, ed., Notes on the New Translation of the Torah (Philadelphia: Jewish

Publication Society, 1969), 3.

746 Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 4 (2013)

the deliberation on Gen 3:6 is about changing “the tree was to be desired to make
one wise” to “the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom,” citing GKC as a refer­
ence.41 Why would these translators think that decision to take out “with her” was
not “significant” or “interesting”?42
Nearly every other time that hm( appears in the MT referring to a female
character, the translators of the RSV and NJPS convey it in English.43 The RSV
consistently translates hm( as “with her” and the NJPS usually agrees.44 In Ruth
1:7, the NJPS stresses proximity by rendering hm( as “accompanied by.” In 1 Kgs
3:17, both the RSV and NJPS seek to clarify the Hebrew ‫ עמה בבית‬by translating,
“while she was in the house.” 1 Kings 17:20 also invites some translational license
as ‫ מתגורר עמה‬becomes “with whom I sojourn” (RSV) and “whose guest I am”
(NJPS). Yet in all these verses, hm( is translated into English with some suggestion
of togetherness. The only other instance besides Gen 3:6 where either of these
translations refrains from conveying hm( in English is the NJPS translation of Exod
18:6b: ‫ואשתך ושני בניה עמה‬, “with your wife and her two sons.” Although the NJPS
does not translate hm( as “with her,” the idea of accompaniment has already been
conveyed by the first “with” of the clause. The NJPS translators appear to find “with
her” redundant in Exod 18:6b—and in Gen 3:6b. However, in the latter verse “with
her” offers crucial information.
Robert Alter offers some insight as to why translators leave out that Adam was
“with her.” His translation of Genesis seeks fidelity to the Hebrew that honors its
literary nuances. Justifying the need for another Genesis translation, Alter main­
tains, “The unacknowledged heresy underlying most modern English versions of
the Bible is the use of translation as a vehicle for explaining the Bible instead of
representing it in another language, and in the most egregious instances this
amounts to explaining away the Bible.”45 Strikingly, however, Alter’s translation of
Gen 3:6 leaves out any rendering of hm(.46 Asked via e-mail why translators, like
himself, make this decision, Professor Alter replied:
My guess is that the reason other translations omit ‘immah is simply that it sounds
a bit awkward and unnecessary in English. In my case, alas, the only reason is

41 Ibid., 64.
42 Similarly, Millar Burrows wrote a volume explaining the justifications for changes between

the KJV (which contains “with her”) and the RSV (which does not). Among the thousands of
verses discussed, Gen 3:6 is not listed. See Burrows, Diligently Compared: The Revised Standard
Version and the King James Version of the Old Testament (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1964).
43 I do not include Prov 10:22 or Dan 2:22, in which hm( refers back to a blessing or God,

respectively.
44 See Gen 30:16; 39:10; Exod 18:6; 22:15 (Eng. 22:16); Deut 22:23, 25, 28, 29; Judg 13:9, Ruth

1:7, 22; 1 Sam 1:24; 2 Sam 11:4; 12:24; Esth 2:13.

45 Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996), xii.
46 Robert Crumb works from Alter’s translation in his illustrated depiction of Genesis (see

chart above). In the panel that illustrates Gen 3:6a, Eve stands alone by the tree. See Crumb,
illustrator, The Book of Genesis Illustrated (New York: W. W. Norton, 2009).
 Parker: Blaming Eve Alone 747

inadvertence. Since my policy as a translator is to represent every word in the

Hebrew unless it sounds absolutely bizarre (not the case here), I should have
written “with her” but didn’t realize I had skipped the word. Thank you for point­
ing this out.47

Alter’s response helps to explain why some translators have not conveyed hm( in
English. However, to say that the man was “with her” is not awkward or unneces­
sary, and most Bibles retain this phrase. While Alter left out “with her” inadvertently,
the Standard Bible Committee did so knowingly. For a few translators, like Jerome,
this decision seems intentional to emphasize the woman’s culpability. Some trans­
lators simply follow previous Bible versions that do not say the man is “with her”
without realizing this omission. Other translators, aware that they do not convey
hm(, have merely viewed this word as unimportant; however, it is highly significant.
Translations that fail to convey that the man is “with her” when the woman eats the
fruit enable readers to excuse Adam and condemn Eve.

V. Conclusion

The Hebrew word hm( in Gen 3:6b holds a solid place among ancient witnesses
and most modern translations. It conveys meaning, as grammars testify, and
changes the story of Gen 3:1–6, as commentaries aver. Scholars may omit this word
in English translation through oversight, copying an earlier translation, the impres­
sion that this phrase is redundant, perceived awkwardness in English, or failure to
recognize its significance. In rare instances, as with Jerome, this may be a deliberate
effort to isolate the woman. The arguments above have sought to expose the biases
and weaknesses of such reasons. This discussion also points to the intertwined
relationship between translation and interpretation. The myth of “the fall” has
become so firmly embedded in our collective conscience with only the woman as
the culpable character that translators may convey the story accordingly, without
realizing that they are contradicting the Hebrew text. Yet, while discerning transla­
tors’ motivations for specific decisions can be speculative, assessing the effect of
these translations is not.
Blaming Eve alone brings considerable consequences not only for understand­
ing Gen 3:6, but also for generating ideas about women. The case of hm( in this
verse shows why scholars who translate biblical texts must do so fully and accurately.
Translators should beware of imposing androcentric biases and should guard
against linguistic choices that skew the text against women. Feminist biblical schol­
ars should raise questions of translation in their work and should participate in
Bible translation committees. Printed editions of the Bible reach billions of readers
and even a seemingly insignificant word lost in translation can have far-reaching
implications.

47 Alter, e-mail communication, July 2011.

Copyright of Journal of Biblical Literature is the property of Society of Biblical Literature and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.