Hello again, WILLOWTREE,
quote:
Originally posted by WILLOWTREE
'ish' or 'ishi', like you say is 'man' in the generic sense.
It is "ish", i.e. Hebrew
איש. As a Hebrew term for "a man", "ishi" is not an option. Rather, your "ishi" would indicate a 1st person, common singular pronomial suffix attached to the construct form of the noun to make it possessive. IOW, "ishi", Hebrew
אִישִי, literally means "man of mine". This is usually translated to KJV English as "my husband", as in Gen. 29:32: . . .
כי עתה יאהבנִי אִישִי׃
See, what kind of trouble you can get into? . . . when you're pointing out a man to your Hebrew friends and they think you are introducing them to your husband.
As to the term "ish", the description "generic" apparently hasn't conveyed to you the sense I had intended. There is a subtle nuance here that needs to be grasped. There is no usage of a plural construction of "adam". It is, then, used with much the same construction and connotations that we use for "man" in the sense of "human" or "human species", i.e. not singular/plural but rather, singular/
collective.
In contrast, "ish" does utilize plural forms. It is used with much the same connotation that we ascribe to "fellow" or "guy". Thus, while a plural construction of "ish" may be used to describe a specific group of men (as separate in some way from the rest of humanity, i.e. "those guys"), "adam" would only be used to refer to the afore mentioned "humanity"
collectively.
In the same sense, "ish"
without the definite article would have the connotation of "a guy" or "a fellow", whereas "adam"
without the definite article has the connotation of "humanity/mankind".
Then, "ish"
with the definite article would indicate "the guy" or "the fellow", whereas "adam"
with the definite article would carry the sense of "the human being".
quote:
WILLOWTREE:
But where is this definite article in the original text ?
Amlodhi writes:
Note the definite article ה (h') "the", i.e., this is translated as "the man" instead of the proper name "Adam" because one wouldn't say "the Adam" anymore than one would say "the Cain".
OK, if you insist the original contains a def/art then so be it.
But your rendering is controlled by english grammar standards which is in defiance of the text/"dm"/h'awdawm.
On the contrary, the rendering is in accordance with Hebraic grammatical standards.
Give me a reference to any other proper name of a man in the biblical text that is preceded by the definite article and I will concede the point. If you cannot, you should concede the point.
quote:
WILLOWTREE:
Amlodhi writes:
Gen. 4:1 . . .and said, I have gotten איש (ish) "a man" with the help of YHWH.
But the passage we are arguing says "dm" and not "ish", it was you who already established "awdawm" or I prefer "odom".
As was explained, chapter 4 provides a wonderful opportunity to see just how each of these terms are used. You know, for contrast and comparison?
Incidentally, you should really use "adm" for "adam" instead of just "dm" when transcribing the Hebrew characters into English ones, regardless of your personal preference. The word "adam" in Hebrew begins with "aleph" and, although it is itself silent, it is a consonant that carries a vowel here. As it is, the transcription "dm", read "dam", is the Hebrew word for blood.
quote:
WILLOWTREE:
So you are saying the def/art determines if "dm" becomes proper . . .
Let's be clear; I'm saying that if it's prefixed with the definite article, then it's
not a proper name. Look at Ecclesiastes 2:11-12 for example:
quote:
Ecc. 2:11-12, "Then I faced all my works that my hands had done, and on the labor that I had labored to do . . . And I turned to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly. For what can the man (h'adam) who comes after the king do when they have already done it?"
Ecclesiastes is said to have been written by king Solomon. The term for "the man" in the above passage is "h'adam", i.e. "adam" prefixed with the definite article "h". Thus, if you say that "adam"
with the definite article should be translated as the proper name "Adam", then you must also be saying that Adam was born after king Solomon.
Now let's consider the use of the term "adam"
without the definite article. Look at Ezekiel 28:2 for example:
quote:
Ez. 28:2, ". . . say to the ruler of Tyre . . . because your heart is lifted up, and you have said, 'I am a god' . . . yet you are man (adam), and not a god."
This is addressed to the ruler of Tyre. The term for "man" in the above passage is "adam", i.e. without the definite article. Thus, if you say that "adam"
without the definite article should be translated as the proper name "Adam", then you must also be saying that Adam was the ruler of Tyre.
Here, then, we see that even
without the definite article, the term "adam" doesn't necessarily indicate a proper name. Thus, it becomes apparent that rather than simply choosing when we'd
like the term "adam" to indicate a proper name (I might, for instance, decide that I would like to make Adam the king of Tyre), we should instead look to the structure and context to see where we should understand the term as a proper name.
As was explained above, probably the best connotation for the term "adam" is the sense of "human". We then have three possible choices for translation; i.e
without the definite article > "humanity, mankind";
without the definite article > a proper name for Adam; and
with the definite article > "the human".
The point I was trying to convey to you is that up until Gen. 4:25, anytime the term "adam" is used
without the definite article, not only is there no grammatical indication that a proper name should be applied, but more importantly, in the continuing text following this term (adam), we find the use of the term
with the definite article (h'adam)
again.
Thus, with an understanding of the explanations above, it just doesn't make literary sense to refer to "Adam" by his proper name and then, a few sentences later, revert back to calling him "the human".
quote:
WILLOWTREE:
. . . why say "dm" to begin with ? Why not say "ish" ?
As noted above; in the sense of "Let us make
adam/humanity/mankind" and "God put
ha'adam/the human being in the garden . . ." as opposed to "Let us make
ish'im/
some men" and "God put
ha'ish/the guy (with the implication that others exist) in the garden . . ."
quote:
WILLOWTREE:
What about the patriarch "Dan" ? Is his proper name ever treated like "dm" ?
If the question is, "Does the proper name 'Dan' ever take the definite article?", then the answer is no.
quote:
WILLOWTREE:
I also submit that the rendering . . . is motivated by an 'a priori' theological position brought into the translation/debate.
Yours may be, but I have no emotional investment here. It wouldn't make a bit of difference to me if the "first man" was referred to in Genesis as "Adam B. Finkelmeier, esquire" all the way through. But he isn't, so I prefer to base my opinions on:
Study of the text in the Hebrew:
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with Masora and Critical Apparatus, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
תורה נביאים כתובים, Koren pub., Jerusalem Ltd.; Jerusalem, Israel.
And reference to:
The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Benjamin Davidson, Hendrickson pub.
The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Francis Brown, D.D.,D. Litt., S.R. Driver, D.D., Litt. D. and Charles A. Briggs, D.D., D. Litt., Hendrickson pub.
The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2 vol., Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Brill pub.
As ever, namaste'
Amlodhi
[Edited to correct minor typo]
This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 07-26-2004 12:43 PM
™ Version 4.2