Reframing Genesis 3:16: Eve’s Creation Memoir
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: Please see the attachment.
Response 1: Thank you for this comment! I have added a brief paragraph and footnote #78 about "The Life of Adam and Eve" on page 15, but have chosen not to discuss this text.
Comment 2: Please see the attachment.
Response 2: I have included an introduction with the methodology for the study.
Comment 3: Please see the attachment.
Response 3: I have reworked and added considerable material and references to show that it is possible to read Gen 4:1-5:2 as Eve's story. This is accomplished through rhetorical analysis and speech act theory. See pages 12–14.
Comment 4: Please see the attachment.
Response 4: I agree with the comment. I have expanded on the ambiguity of et-Yahweh on pages 13–14.
Comment 5: Please see the attachment.
Response 5: I corrected the verse reference in the table. See page 7.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present article exhibits a great deal of originality and significant academic value. The title itself hints at the boldness of the endeavor: to revisit a verse that, under traditional patriarchal exegesis, might not seem open to alternative interpretations. However, the author succeeds in presenting a different perspective through the juxtaposition of various texts. I encourage the author to delve deeper into the research, considering exegetical approaches such as the hermeneutics of suspicion or creative imagination (as also suggested by Trible in her writings).
Below, I outline some points that could enhance the article for publication:
- Line 34: The name'Tov' at the end of the sentence does not make sense; please review
- Line 70, line 75 and line 77: The ellipsis does not make sense in this paragraph. Please review if it is a direct quotation; in that case, it should be properly marked. It is recommended that if the quotation exceeds 40 words, it should be set apart from the main body of the text to facilitate the comprehension of the idea
- Footnote number 18: I would suggest changing the term 'is mine' to a more academic form such as 'the translation provided by the author.' Additionally, specify in the first note the source being translated, indicating that it will be used throughout the article. Please review the phrase 'The translation is mine,' which is used in several instances throughout the article.
- Line 174: I would remove the term 'our English Bibles' and generalize it to 'in modern Bibles,' as this is a common phenomenon in other languages as well.
- Line 178: The use of images and tables in the article should be indicated in both the text and the figures. In the text, write 'As demonstrated in Table 1...' and above the table, place the following information: 'Table 1. Include a brief description of what it illustrates and indicate if the creation is the author's own.
- Lines 201-203: Following this idea, I would add a footnote indicating that this interpretation of the biblical figure of Eve as an element of evil is not only derived from textual sources but can also be traced in visual culture. In normalized visual representations, Eve has been depicted since the 19th century as embodying the downfall of man, his darkest fears, the femme fatale, and the most savage and primal—and uncontrollable—instincts of women, who are understood as lesser subjects.
Supporting this idea, the reference 'Las hijas de Lilith - Erika Bornay' can be added in that footnote.
- Line 265: "as some English connotations may suggest" --> add a footnote indicating those references/translations that are mentioned.
Author Response
Comment 1: Please see the attachment.
Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion and encouragement. I have added considerable material and references and improved the entire article.
Comments about lines and footnotes: I have made corrections and implemented each suggestion. Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. You are right to point out the problems of the chapter divisions as recognized by Locke and others, but even the petuha and setumah reflect an interpretation. Would it be worth commenting on this somewhere on p. 4?
2. I realize that you are dividing the narrative units by the petuhot and setumot for your argument. However, should it be acknowledged in a footnote that it is a matter of debate where the transition to the second creation story occurs since many scholars think Gen 1 ends with 2:4a; not 2:3. By all appearances, ‘eleh toledot hashamayim v’ha’aretz b’hibaram forms an inclusio with 1:1. (Not everyone sees 2:4a as an inclusio and this view may be contradicted by 5:1-2); however, since 2:4a uses the toledot formula and Gen 1 is generally regarded as priestly, it seems that 2:4b marks the beginning of the second creation narrative. Interestingly, 1:1, 2:1, and 2:4a describe God creating “the heavens and the earth” while 2:4b describes the creation of “the earth and the heavens”.
3. I don’t have my BHS on hand so I am working from the Koren edition. In this Bible, 4:26 ends with a setumah and not a petuha. Moreover, I don’t find a setumah at all in 5:2. In my Bible, the setumah occurs at the end of 5:5. To summarize, in the Koren edition, petuhot occur at the end of 3:21 and 6:4. In between are eleven setumot at 3:24, 4:26, 5:6; 5:8, 5:11, 5:14, 5:17, 5:20, 5:24, 5:27, 5:31. This makes it hard for me to understand Lines 136-141 and confuses me regarding Lines 170-72 since my edition does not have a setumah where you say it does.
4. A quick comment about the translation of ‘adam. My understanding is that when a common noun lacks the definite article as in Gen 5:1-2, it should be rendered “humankind” (in other words, the collective human race) rather than “the Human” since in this case, 'adam would require the definite article as it commonly appears in Gen 2.
5. The end of Line 233. Would it be more correct to translate “et-YHWH” as a preposition (“with”) rather than as a direct object indicator? Thus, “with Yahweh” as in “with (the help of/partnership of) Yahweh”.
6. Regarding 2:23, I see the Human’s response as a humorous comment on God’s recognition that it was not good for the Human to be alone. God first dealt with the lack of companionship by fashioning the various animals and bringing them to the Human to name, but the Human does not find ezer k’negdo with them. God tries again and this time “builds” a woman, brings her to him, and the Human responds, This time (z’ot ha-pa’am) bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” In other words, God blew it the first time but got it right on the second try. While the human and animals were biologically compatible with nefesh hayyah, the woman was unique, since in her the Human had a special correspondence that did not exist with the animals.
7. Line 31: Should a (P) follow pe at the end of the line? This would make it consistent with Line 32 and the chart on page 6.
8. Line 157. In my Koren edition, I see a setumah here; not a petuha.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe reading is a little dense but overall the English is fine. I noticed a few typos as I was reading through the manuscript and I list them below. I'm sure that I did not catch everything, but what I noticed, I list below:
Line 26: No need for a comma after “Tov argues”. Also, it should be “the absence of a division or subdivision”.
Footnote 1 at the end of the line should be “of the” Bible.
Line 34. No need for “Tov” standing by itself at the end of the paragraph.
Lines 65. The sentence at this point should be rewritten since what appears after “a whole” does not make sense. Perhaps remove the word “continues” so it reads, “a whole text into a broken and dismembered text”.
Lines 69-78. This paragraph appears to be a quote from Locke, but it does not have quotation marks at the beginning and end of the citation.
Line 154 needs to be rewritten. Do you mean “and she speaks again and credits God, . . .”? If so, then remove “names” from the sentence.
Line 267. Should “the” be added? “. . . her initial gift of being the image and likeness of God . . .”
Author Response
Comment 1: Please see the attachment.
Response 1: Thank you for this comment! I have added a quote from Tov on page 2 and the footnote #4.
Comment 2: Please see the attachment.
Response 2: Again, thank you! See my footnote #21 on page 5.
Comment 3: Please see the attachment.
Response 3: On page 7, in the sentence above the table, I state that the divisions are in the Masoretic text in the BHS.
Comment 4: Please see the attachment.
Response 4: To clarify this, I added footnote #27 and #29.
Comment 5: Please see the attachment.
Response 5: Please see my added work about the ambiguous et-Yahweh on pages 13–14. I would love to hear your response.
Comment 6: Please see the attachment.
Response 6: I like this version of 2:23.
Comments 7 and 8: Please see the attachment.
Response to 7 and 8: The P and O are from the BHS
Comments on the quality of the English: Please see the attachment.
Response: Thank you! I have corrected each item.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author improved the first text version, and their additions made the article more explicit.
