On Fri, 1 Dec 1995 00:54:53 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
[...]
>I am not a Hebrew scholar in the sense of having a PhD in this Biblical
>language, but I do hold a masters degree (Regent College) in Gen 1-11,
>and was accepted to a PhD in OT at the U of Toronto (then I smartened up
>and jumped into theology proper ;-). But the question you ask is well
>within my Hebrew skill level. And you are 110% right. There is no
>article in Gen. 1:26, but it is present in Gen 1:27. Get yourself The
>NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament and you can see it for
>yourself. You will see that in v.27 there is an "open square" looking
>character with a "T" looking character below it that is added to "Adam"
>(remember it is added from the right because in Hebrew we go from right to
>left)--that is the definite article. I have also confirmed this finding
>with the Massoretic Text (the standard Hebrew manuscript) and there is NO
>contention whatsoever with regard to these verses from a text criticism
>perspective.
>So Glenn, you and your friends are right.
Denis, I am not a Hebrew scholar but I can read Hebrew (with some
difficulty) and I do have an Interlinear Hebrew Bible.
While you are right about the Heb. article in Gn 1:26-27, that is not
the two-"Adam" model argument. The fact is that there is a definite
change in the prefixes to the Hebrew 'Adam that enable translators to
translate 'Adam into "man", "the man" or "Adam". No translation AFAIK
translates Gn 1:26-27 'Adam into "Adam", but correctly translates it
"man". OTOH, translators correctly translate 'Adam as either "man",
"the man" or "Adam", depending on the Heb. prefixes and context, from
Gn 2:19-20 onwards.
For example, Erickson states:
"In the creation account (e.g., Gen. 1:26; 2:7) the Hebrew word ADM
('adam), which is often used symbolically of the entire human race,
refers to the first man, who is anonymous. In other passages (e.g.,
Gen. 4:1; 5:3) it is a proper noun pointing to a specific individual
who came later." (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", Baker: Grand
Rapids MI, 1985, p486)
Tregelles also:
"(4) [Adam], pr n.-(a) of the first man made, Gen. 2:7, seq. 3,4.
In these passages at least ADM assumes somewhat the nature of a proper
name, as denoting the man, as the only one of his kind..."
(Tregelles S.P., "Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old
Testament", Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1949, p13)
Here is an extract from a post I did on 11 Nov 95:
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have now done an exhaustive word study of all occurrences of Heb
'adam in Gn 1-5. The problem is that Strongs of itself does not show
up the different nuances of the word. The same root word 'adam means
"man" and "Adam", depending on the prefixes attached to it, and also
the context. The following are the three uses of the Heb. word 'adam
in the NIV:
1. Heb. adam: a. = "man": i. man as male and female (Gen 1:26;
5:1,2*); b. = "Adam" i. Adam* [Gen 4:25; 5:1*,3*,4*,5]
2. Heb. ha adam: a. = "the man": i. man as male and female (Gen
1:27); ii. Adam (Gen 2:7,8,15,16,18,19*,20*,21*,22,23*;
3:8,9*,12,22,24); b. = "Adam" (Gen 3:20*; Gen 4:1).
3. Heb. va adam a. = "a man" : i. man in general (Gen 2:5)
4. Heb. le adam a. = "man": i. Adam (Gen 2:20*,25); b. = "Adam" (Gen
3:17*,21*)
*AV "Adam"
The conclusion is that the Heb. supports the two-"Adam" theory. In
Gn 1:26-27, the Heb. adam and ha adam, cannot be translated "Adam",
and in fact they are not in any translation AFAIK. OTOH, from Gn 2
onwards, the Heb. adam, ha adam, and le adam are translated as both
"man"and "Adam".
-----------------------------------------------------------
There is no doubt that the two-"Adam" model is possible
linguistically.
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------