mistranslation of 'adam (was: The wrong horse in evolution education)

Dick Fischer wrote:

>
> If /‘adam /had been translated “Adam” every time it came up in Genesis
> 1-11 we wouldn’t be having these discussions at all. But the KJV
> translators had preconceived notions and we’re stuck with them.
>
> As I have pointed out before, /‘adam/ and /‘ish/ are both used for
> “man.” Translators have carelessly commingled them, however, so we
> can’t see the differences in pertinent verses.
>
> Once you have given up the distinction as you do by conferring /‘adam/
> on generic man in Genesis 1:27, you have lost the ability to make any
> further conclusions on subsequent verses that would aid your (and my)
> case that Adam comes late in the progression of mankind and that the
> Adamic race is not the same as the human race.
>
> By keeping the proper distinction between /‘adam/ and /‘ish/ there are
> other verses that make better sense where the KJV translation that
> blurs the distinction makes little sense.
>
> Psalm 49:1-2 is a case in point: /"Hear this all ye people; give ear
> all ye inhabitants of the world: both low and high, rich and poor,
> together."/
>
> The two Hebrew words /bene// 'adam/, translated "low" in the second
> verse, are literally "sons of Adam." What comes to us as "high" is
> /bene// 'ish/. The word ‘/ish/ is a more general term meaning "man,"
> "male," "human being," or "mankind." Instead of "low and high," which
> bear no semblance of meaning from the original Hebrew, either "sons of
> Adam and sons of man," or "Adamite and Non-Adamite" would have been
> literal translations, faithful to the Hebrew text.
>
> Ah, but who could the sons of man be who are not sons of Adam?
> Non-Adamites? How could that be possible? So, the translators avoided
> certain controversy by substituting the benign "low and high," virtual
> synonyms for "poor" and "rich." Modern translators of newer versions
> have simply followed along.
>
> This technique of substituting words of convenience where /'adam/ and
> /'ish/ are contained in the same sentence is used also in Psalm 62:9,
> where we do not read, "Surely vanity are the sons of Adam, a lie are
> the sons of man ..." Instead we read, "Surely men of low degree are
> vanity, and men of high degree are a lie ..."
>
> In Isaiah 2:9, do we see the Adamite bow down, and the Non-Adamite
> humble himself? No, we see instead, "And the mean man (/'adam/) boweth
> down, and the great man (/'ish/) humbleth himself ..."
>
> This same pattern is repeated in Isaiah 31:8, where the term for
> generic man /'ish/ becomes a "mighty man," while /'adam/ is a "mean
> man." So, thanks to a sanitizing translation process, even a prophet
> may have difficulty getting his message to the people.
>
> And that’s my point. Blurring the distinction between /‘adam/ and
> /‘ish/ may be tempting in the opening verse of Genesis, but it sets
> you up for error interpreting the rest of the Old Testament as it did
> for the KJV translators.
>
Dick's interpretation is an example of eisegesis, not exegesis.

1. Because a word like /'adam/ can have a range of connotations, that
does not mean that we are allowed select from that range in an arbitrary
fashion. It is essential that the word must be considered in context.
2. The passages in Psalms and Isaiah cited by Dick are poetry (set out
as such in many Bible versions such as the RSV). A feature of Hebrew
poerty is the parallelism in pairs of consecutive phrases. In Ps 49: 2
(RSV translation) "both high and low, rich and poor together" this
should be obvious.
3. Idioms must be recognized as such (e. g. in the context of a naval
battle a "man of war" is not an individual militant man.) In Hebrew
/bene 'adfam/ and /ben 'ish/ are common idioms.
4. The Hebrew scriptures should not be isolated from other relevant
documents. The translation of Hebrew into Greek of Ps 49: 2 in the
Septuagint should settle the matter. The word used there is "anthropos",
not "Adam". The implicatiion is that the verse means "sons of mean men
and sons of great men", that is the low and the high.

Don
Received on Tue Apr 11 18:19:19 2006