On Fri, 1 Dec 1995 08:51:11 -0500 you wrote:
[...]
BH>You've answered the question about the presence/absence of definite
>articles, but I'm not convinced you've put the "two Adam" model to rest.
>Most English translations use "man" or "mankind" in chapter 1. In chapter
>2 they use "the man" and "the woman". Finally in 3:17 they begin referring
>to "Adam" and "Eve". My question is: what textual clues lead the
>translators to follow this progression? If the clues are really there,
>then the two-Adam maodel seems viable to me. If the rendering is just
>tradition, then the two Adam model becomes more problematic.
Thank you to Bill for this support! :-) See my responses re Glenn's
and Denis' posts.
One does not have to be a Hebrew scholar to realise that even our
English translations indicate there is a difference in translating the
same root Hebrew word 'Adam into "man", "the man" or "Adam",
respectively.
*No* English translation AFAIK translates 'Adam in Gn 1:26-26 into
"Adam" but they *all*1 AFAIK translate 'Adam in Gn 2:19-20 onwards as
either "Adam", "man" or "the man".
1. KJV, RSV, NIV, Berkeley, Living, NEB, Amplified, Green's "Literal
Translation of the Bible"
These are all the translations I have access to, but that should be
sufficient, since they include most of the major English
translations. Those who wish to maintain that 'Adam in Gn 1:26-27
should be translated "Adam", should produce their English translations
that so render it.
Otherwise, the two-"Adam" model stands as at least linguistically
possible.
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------