When looking at the creation of man in Genesis 2, I was struck that God describes putting him in Eden twice, separated by the description of rivers:
Genesis 2:8 (KJV 1900)
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. [וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם אֶת הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר]
Genesis 2:15 (KJV 1900)
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. [וַיִּקַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן עֵדֶן לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ]
Usually such repetition is evidence of two sides of a chiasm, but I could find no chiasm in which verses 8 and verses 15 were parallels (of course this part of Genesis has many chiasms)
Also strange is that if the text was merely reiterating that man was put in Eden, then why the "take" clause in the second verse instead of the first? E.g. the first verse has "put" and the second has "took" and "put", suggesting the man wasn't there, which introduces a break in the time flow sequence of events. If I was writing this, I'd say
- "And God took the man he had formed, and put him in the garden of Eden"
- [then describe eden and the rivers]
- "And the garden of Eden is where God put the man"
I would not say
- "And God put the man in the garden of Eden"
- [then describe eden and the rivers]
- "And God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden".
So what is the purpose of repeating the placement of man in these two verses, and phrasing them in this manner?
Update:
Anne has suggested that the sham - שָׁם in verse 8 refers to Eden, not the garden. E.g. that the text should be grouped as:
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden and there [in Eden] he put the man whom he had formed
rather than:
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden and there [in the garden] he put the man whom he had formed.
If someone can make a case that this is the likely reading, that would be a valid answer, however some evidence should be provided as restrictive clauses are rarely the referents of demonstratives in subsequent independent clauses. E.g. if I say "I went to the square near the village and there I dropped a penny" then almost everyone will assume the penny was dropped in the square. If sham can point to any of the clauses that further specify a substantive, then because of the extensive use apposition in Hebrew, there would be massive referent-identification problems in the language.
Here are some other readings of verse 8:
targum Neofiti: And the Lord God had planted a garden in Eden from the beginning and he placed there the first Adam whom he had created.
targum Onqelos: And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in ancient times and He made Adam, whom He created, dwell there
targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Before the creation of the world a garden had been planted by the Memra of the Lord God from Eden for the righteous, and he made Adam dwell there when he created him.
Samaritan Pentateuch[1]: And Shehmaa Eloowwem planted a garden toward the east, in Ehden. And there He placed the man whom He had formed.
LXX[2]: Καὶ ἐφύτευσεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς παράδεισον ἐν Ἔδεμ κατὰ ἀνατολὰς καὶ ἔθετο ἐκεῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὃν ἔπλασεν [And the Lord God planted a paradise in Eden in toward the east and there he placed the human that he formed]
[1] Benyamim Tsedaka, ed., The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version, trans. Benyamim Tsedaka (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013)
[2] John William Wevers, ed., Genesis, vol. I, Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974)